Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET OFFICE

The Minister was asked—

Ministerial Visit (Iran)

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If she will make a statement on her recent visit to Iran. [153300]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): My visit to Iran, at the invitation of the former Iranian ambassador in London, was to help to build partnerships for better co-operation between our countries to halt the flow of heroin from Afghanistan through Iran into Europe. That causes social problems on the way. This co-operation will benefit both the UK and Iran. While I was there, I signed a memorandum of understanding between Iran and the UK on drugs co-operation and pledged a further £78,000 from the UK to help Iranian drug demand reduction efforts.

Mr. Mackinlay: I fully endorse my right hon. Friend's endeavours to combat organised drug crime between here and Iran. Her visit was highly publicised, so can she tell us whether she had an opportunity to reinforce the United Kingdom's deep concerns about continued civil rights abuses in Iran, particularly bearing in mind the fact that her visit coincided with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's listing the Mujaheddin as a proscribed organisation? Were the right signals conveyed to Tehran during her visit for that important reason?

Marjorie Mowlam: I consulted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before I left. The issue was raised with me and I explained what had been done. We, as a Government, are opposed to capital punishment and the kind of human rights violations that take place in Iran. However, if we are to make progress, it is better to work with countries for change; talking to people makes change a possibility. If we just ignore and condemn, that will not bring about change. Iran has a different culture, but while I was there I raised the issue of human rights with every Minister I met and referred, in particular, to the case of the folk who went to the conference in Berlin and were imprisoned for that.

Mr. John Bercow: What assessment has the right hon. Lady made of the uses to which the Iranians have put the £2.68 million contributed by the British Government to the anti-drugs effort? How does she expect the additional £78,000 to be allocated, and is she now able to throw any light on the real reasons for the sudden resignation of the head of that country's anti-drugs headquarters, General Mohammad Fallah?

Marjorie Mowlam: General Mohammad Fallah resigned and then took up his job again. I think the explanation of why he left now becomes a secondary issue.
The money allocated from this country goes with that from other countries to the United Nations, and the UN drugs team uses the money. I saw it being used to improve the systems for night vision on the border and to assist customs and excise. It is used to help to stop the drugs moving through.

Mr. Michael Clapham: Although I appreciate the need for the memorandum of understanding to prevent drugs from coming to Europe and to the United Kingdom in particular, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need to strike up a dialogue with the country in which the drugs originate? Perhaps we could establish a European package so that farmers who currently grow poppies are encouraged to diversify into other crops. The poppy, which has caused so much misery, could be replaced by other crops.

Marjorie Mowlam: The United Nations drugs unit has a policy of co-operation between European countries to feed into the UN's efforts in Afghanistan. The Taliban are in discussion with the Iranians, so there is some communication between them on policy. My hon. Friend's suggestion that European Union countries should be involved is valid. We have just managed to do that elsewhere, and Spain is taking that approach in its relations with Colombia. The European Union has provided 105 million ecu to help to prevent the production of cocaine in Colombia. I am sure that, in time, we will begin to understand that such countries face problems partly because of the demand in Europe, so I hope that the policy that my hon. Friend described will be followed.

Regulatory Reform Bill

Mr. John Healey: If she will make a statement on the impact of the provisions of the Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords] on the regulation of business. [153301]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office(Mr. Graham Stringer): The Bill will enable Government to reform whole regulatory regimes originating in different pieces of legislation using a well tried and tested parliamentary procedure. That will simplify legislation and make it less burdensome for business while maintaining the necessary protections for both the consumer and the environment.

Mr. Healey: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. There is strong support for the Bill among businesses in south Yorkshire, including members of the Federation of Small Businesses whom I met on Friday night. Many will welcome the 51 reform proposals that are now in the pipeline under the Bill. However, will he explain how firms that want other outdated and overlapping regulations removed in the future can register their concerns, so that he can consider using the powers that he will have at his disposal under the Bill?

Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friend's experience in south Yorkshire reflects my discussions with businesses throughout the country. In addition to the 51 items that we listed, businesses are invited to use the Cabinet Office website to suggest proposals for regulatory reform. They can write directly to us at any time or inform us of their concerns in the many consultations that we hold with them, in which I will be delighted to tell them that although we want the reforms, the Opposition do not.

Public Appointments Commissioner

Mr. Graham Brady: If she will make a statement on the work of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. [153302]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): The Commissioner for Public Appointments, Dame Rennie Fritchie, regulates ministerial appointments to public bodies within her remit. Her work and advice are highly regarded and respected by the Government.

Mr. Brady: The Minister knows that it is a year since the Government faced swingeing criticism from the Commissioner for Public Appointments about the practice of stuffing national health service trust boards and health authorities with Labour crony appointments. In the 12 months since then, they have continued that practice in their appointments to the new primary care trust boards. Dame Rennie Fritchie has been—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not sound like a question. If the hon. Gentleman agrees to ask one quickly, I shall allow him to continue.

Mr. Brady: I shall indeed be quick. Dame Rennie Fritchie's inquiry into the practice as it relates to primary care trusts will be concluded at the end of the month. Will the Minister ensure that the report is produced very early in April, so that the Government cannot sweep it under the carpet?

Mr. Stringer: What an extraordinary statement from a party that appointed a three-times failed Conservative candidate as chairman of the Yorkshire health authority—that was its approach to public appointments. The Labour party has co-operated with the Commissioner for Public Appointments and accepted her recommendations. If the

hon. Gentleman reads the text of the report, he will see that the Government's appointment of local councillors reflects the proportion of councillors on the ground.

Mr. Brady: indicated dissent.

Mr. Stringer: That is what the report says, unlike when the Conservatives were in government and they put their friends and their friends' wives into every appointment going.

Tony Wright: I think it is recognised that the Commissioner for Public Appointments is doing a good job and I hope that she will soon be reappointed. However, what matters is which public bodies are covered by her remit. Will my hon. Friend ensure that new public bodies automatically come under her remit unless there is a good reason why they should not?

Mr. Stringer: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government have extended the number of appointments covered by the commissioner to more than 30,000. We always consider whether new bodies are appropriate for the Nolan process. However, bodies that are established quickly for specialist purposes and last for only two or three months are not appropriate for it.

Regulation

Mr. Michael Fabricant: If she will make a statement on her role in interdepartmental co-ordination of Government policy on regulation. [153303]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): I chair the panel for regulatory accountability that looks at new regulations in the pipeline. We have also appointed a regulatory reform Minister in each Department; and on Monday, the Regulatory Reform Bill, which was introduced in December, had its Second Reading in the House.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank the right hon. Lady for her answer. In her role as the regulator of Departments, is she aware that this morning—on top of everything else—the Foreign Secretary admitted that he had leaked documents to a BBC journalist, even though he had previously denied that? Is she further aware that, less than four years after being elected, the Government are characterised by hype, no delivery—and now sleaze?

Marjorie Mowlam: I am not sure that that has anything to do with the nature of the questions being asked today, and it shows how panicked the Conservative party is by the prospect of an election. It is trying to hide the previous Government's record of sleaze.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: In the co-ordination to which she has referred, will my right hon. Friend make it an absolute responsibility of all Departments to ensure that the public know that the Government are committed to better regulation, whereas the Conservative party is committed to deregulation, particularly if it erodes conditions for working people?

Marjorie Mowlam: That is a central aim of the Government, but we will not achieve it in the unbalanced


way the Conservatives did. The Regulatory Reform Bill is an example of balance in legislation. It aims to ensure that basic rights—unlike the Tories, we will not apologise for them or portray them as excessive and costly—are upheld. I am not going to apologise for the minimum wage, for improving maternity leave, for bringing in parental leave, for giving millions of employees the right to paid holiday for the first time, or for tackling discrimination against the disabled. We will be proud of those changes, but we will not forget the needs of business and never have done. This morning, five draft Bills were published which will make 51 improvements and save business £40 million. The Regulatory Reform Bill is balanced to protect workers' rights and to help business.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: In the course of her discussions on regulation with colleagues, what did the right hon. Lady discuss with the Foreign Secretary in relation to the Stockholm summit this weekend? What attitude will the Government take to the proposal from UNICE—the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe—and Eurochambres for introducing a rigorous programme of business impact assessments?

Marjorie Mowlam: We are working not only across Departments but with the Commission, the European Parliament and other member states to improve and simplify the European regulatory environment. As part of that we participate in the Mandelkern group on better regulation, which has produced a very good report on specific, practical recommendations. Last week, I talked to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office before his departure for Stockholm, and he addressed issues relating to the summit report. The development of a system in the Commission to assess the costs and benefits of all proposed European legislation is one of the key elements that we are working towards.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that reply, but I am afraid that I was looking for something more specific. Can she say that it will be the intention of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary at the Stockholm summit this weekend to secure a Council agreement requiring the Commission to undertake immediate discussions with business organisations on introducing an business impact assessment system, and to commit the Commission to do so within a maximum of 18 months?

Marjorie Mowlam: Yes.

Mr. Brian White: Given that the usual Tory reaction of approving a Bill in the other place and opposing it here was evident on Monday night when we debated the Regulatory Reform Bill, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that she will continue to make proposals that will deal with inconsistencies and anomalies in a whole raft of regulations in different areas, rather than the individual cases that can be dealt with under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994?

Marjorie Mowlam: I was as surprised and disappointed as my hon. Friend by Conservative Members' reaction to the Bill, given that the Opposition

in another place supported it in principle. The Conservative party has a very poor record of regulatory reform in government, having introduced no fewer than 13 times as many regulations as were repealed under the deregulation initiative between 1994 and 1997. Conservative Members are now opposing legislation that could bring £40 million in benefits to business and the community in just five early reforms.

Modernising Government Programme

Mr. John Wilkinson: If she will make a statement on progress with the modernising government programme. [153304]

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): We are making excellent progress, as illustrated in "Citizens First—Open All Hours", the modernising government annual report, which was published in September.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) should be aware of the strong consumer focus of the London borough of Hillingdon. For example, as part of the best value review, the council consulted residents widely to ensure that proposals are geared to local needs. Those proposals include more foster carers, action to tackle fly-tipping and a telephone call centre operating out of hours.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the aim of the modernising government programme was to involve public service users, not providers, more closely in matters affecting their lives? In that context, how can he justify the action of the NHS in ignoring so far the 100,000 petitioners who have urged that Harefield hospital be retained and built up? How is it that a vested interest, such as the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority, which is a member of the regeneration partnership, can lead the consultation on the future of the hospital?

Mr. McCartney: I have no detailed knowledge of individual hospitals and shall write to the hon. Gentleman. However, there has been a 6.7 per cent. increase in the NHS allocation in his area; £184 million has been allocated for next year, compared with the previous allocation of £169 million. More than £500,000 has been invested in modernising an accident and emergency unit; there is £500,000 for a new cancer network; and tens of thousands of pounds have been allocated to reduce the area's long waiting lists.
The Government are modernising the health service; the Tories just want to privatise it.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress that has been made on developments in UK Online, especially the section on life events, which will provide a great service to the public at times of great need. May I suggest that one way of improving the site and monitoring its success would be to establish a link for Members of Parliament to feed in suggestions about how to develop it further?

Mr. McCartney: I am more than happy to offer every Member of Parliament the opportunity to express their


ideas. Indeed, one aim of the site is to seek information on a regular, daily basis from its users about how to improve both it and the services that it provides. As a consequence, we shall improve the site, based on customer feedback. If my hon. Friend wants to make suggestions, I will ensure that we try to incorporate them, so long as they are good.

Government Services (Accessibility)

Fiona Mactaggart: If she will make a statement on making Government services more accessible to the public. [153306]

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): We have appointed consumer champions in all the key central government services to find out and meet users' needs. I visited my hon. Friend's constituency on 15 March to launch the booklet "Citizens First—Open All Hours", which details progress to date on providing extended opening hours across the public services. We will provide electronic access to all relevant services by 2005. The UK Online citizens' portal went live on 4 December 2000.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and welcome the Government's commitment to extending access to public services in health, education and employment. I was particularly pleased to welcome my right hon. Friend to the NHS walk-in centre in Slough—open 15 hours a day, 7 days a week—where he saw the work of Sally Patrick and her excellent team.
Can we look forward to other public services having an extended opening hours culture so that citizens who are at work—after all, there are many more of them under this Government than there used to be—can get access to public services?

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right, and I can give her a commitment that there will be a rolling programme for a range of services across the public sector, based on the "Open All Hours" document. Some of those services will be accessible 24 hours a day, some will be accessible at weekends, and there will be some early morning and late evening services. The basis of those changes will be feedback from consumers using local government and community services.
I ask my hon. Friend to pass on my best wishes to Sister Sally Patrick, who looked after us last week when I visited the Slough centre. It has already seen 10,000 patients in the first few months of operation and is now one of 40 NHS walk-in centres which provide a first-class health care service to people every day. Only four short years ago, such centres did not exist under the Tories. This Government, however, are modernising the health service.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the right hon. Gentleman read either of the EURIM—European Information Society Group—reports on e-government and the modernisation of government? One of the working parties involved was chaired by the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran). Is he glad to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has announced that it is Conservative party policy to proceed with suggestions such as those made in the reports? Will he make urgent representations

regarding implementation of the Senior Salaries Review Body recommendations, to ensure that Members of Parliament have proper IT that links in with the Government system? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Older. I ask the House to come to order. The noise is unfair to hon. Members who are interested in the question.

Mr. McCartney: It sounds just like home at the weekend, Mr. Speaker.
I am fully committed to IT provision over the next few years, not only in terms of modernising the House. That includes not only equipment, but training, in terms of services both in the House and at constituency level. If the hon. Gentleman has any views on the matter, I ask him to contact me, as he has a friend at court.
On the second issue, I have not read Conservative party proposals in detail, but if they have at last turned the tide away from the incompetence on IT that was demonstrated by the previous Government, progress will have been made. The current Government were left with a huge legacy of failure in virtually every IT system procured by the previous Government. That cost the taxpayers of Britain hundreds of millions of pounds and delivered few good services. We are at last turning that around and are at the leading edge in the delivery of e-commerce.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend go a step further on public services and see whether we can get the public to elect the people who run those services—especially the quangos?

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend raises the issue of democratising quangos. That is exactly what this Government have done. We have removed Tory placemen and women and replaced them with local people. We have removed Tory business men and replaced them with people from ethnic minority communities. We have replaced Tory placemen with local women. We will continue to ensure that quangos and other public bodies represent the communities in which people live, not merely Tory placements.

Anti-drugs Strategy

Mrs. Ann Winterton: What new steps are under consideration in the Government's national anti-drugs strategy. [153307]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): The Government are undertaking research to develop a better understanding of the dynamics of the UK and international drugs market, which will improve our intelligence on the class A drugs threat assessment. The national treatment agency and pooled treatment budgets will come into effect on 1 April 2001. We announced in the Budget significant additional investment for targeted action at local and regional level. That will provide an opportunity to build on the experience of initiatives such as parents against drug abuse in south-west Cheshire.

Mrs. Winterton: Studies show that one in 10 drivers under the age of 40 get behind the wheel having taken drugs ranging from cannabis to cocaine. Traces of drugs


are found in one in five people killed on the roads. Will the Minister therefore introduce a national anti-drug driving campaign, bearing in mind the fact that young people have, on the whole, learned the lesson about not drinking and driving?

Marjorie Mowlam: The Government are researching the issue to which the hon. Lady refers. That is the best way of tackling the question of driving under the influence of drugs, legal or illegal, and of providing ways to help the police enforce existing legislation more effectively. It is now being developed alongside other initiatives.

Jackie Ballard: Does the Minister for the Cabinet Office agree that the members of the Runciman commission were respected and knowledgeable people who undertook a detailed, independent, scientific study of the problems of drug use and abuse? If so, why have the Government rejected each of its recommendations out of hand?

Marjorie Mowlam: The Government implemented a large number of the Runciman recommendations. The few that we rejected included one on cannabis. Our approach is clear: the scientific evidence is insufficient to convince us that the law should be changed. However, that does not prevent discussion and debate. If the scientific evidence changes, we will reconsider the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Ql. [153331] Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 March.

The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House. I shall have further such meetings later today.

Mr. Winterton: Livestock is an important and substantial part of agriculture in my constituency. Will the Prime Minister assure hon. Members that farmers whose animals are slaughtered as a result of foot and mouth disease will receive compensation immediately, and that businesses that are affected by the restrictions will receive 100 per cent. relief from the business rate for six months? Will he also ensure that those who are dealing with the outbreak are allowed to use burial to get rid of the carcases that are currently lying on farms?

The Prime Minister: First, on compensation, I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that, yes, they will be paid 100 per cent. compensation. Indeed, we have already paid out £80 million-worth Of compensation. We are trying to make sure that any compensation is paid within seven days.

In respect of the burial of animals, there have been difficulties over the issue of water tables, particularly up in the part of the world that the hon. Gentleman represents. We are making arrangements with the Environment Agency now to try to ensure that we get the necessary burial sites, because that is the best way of disposing of the animals quickly. We believe that we will have those in place very shortly.
Finally, in relation to those farms that have been affected not by the disease but by the restrictions on movement, yes of course they will be subject to the measures that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced yesterday in respect of relief from business rates.

Mr. Paul Flynn: In a few days' time, a cynical, selfish international company will wreck irreparably some capacity in the British steel industry and destroy the lives of thousands of steelworkers. Yesterday, the Government gave unprecedented aid to tourism. Will the Prime Minister now consider a similar unprecedented package for those steelworkers, many of whom will never work again? The problems of tourism are serious but temporary; the devastation suffered by the steelworking communities is permanent.

The Prime Minister: Of course, we urge the company yet again to reconsider the proposals that mean that 6,000 people are made redundant by Corns. That is a very serious situation for those communities affected and for those individuals affected. In addition, we will be there, standing ready and willing to give whatever help we can to those people, should those plans go ahead. Of course, we are well aware of our obligation —and have the financial capacity —to stand behind those people. However, that is secondary to our first desire, which is to ensure that the plans for redundancy do not go ahead.

Mr. William Hague: Yesterday's record number of new foot and mouth cases, and the 25 cases already announced at lunchtime today, show clearly that there is no immediate end in sight, not just for farmers but for huge numbers of rural businesses now facing ruin. May we welcome yesterday's announcements by the Government taskforce, but say to the Prime Minister that there is an urgent case for immediate help?
I wrote to the Prime Minister earlier today with a proposal for an emergency scheme that would give struggling rural businesses loans to help them through the crisis. I gave him notice that I would raise it with him this afternoon. Will he consider adopting the scheme?

The Prime Minister: First of all, as we announced in yesterday's statement, we are already considering with the Small Business Service and others ways in which we can ensure continuing credit for small businesses. That would include, for example, use of the small firms loan guarantee fund. It may in practice be quicker and easier to build on an existing scheme rather than to invent an entirely new one.
I should also say that we can give further details of the proposals on business rates. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will be providing more details of the help, but the scheme will cover all 118 rural local authorities and businesses in those areas with


rateable values of less than £12,000 will be able to apply if they are facing serious hardship as a result of foot and mouth disease. We estimate that this will cover about 75 per cent. of all businesses in rural areas. Depending on the take-up, up to 50,000 people could benefit.
Obviously, we shall also consider carefully the proposal that the right hon. Gentleman has just put forward. I would, however, say that, of course, Government help is important, but those rural businesses cannot exist on Government subsidy. What those businesses—particularly those in tourism—most need is custom, business, trade. They need people to come into the countryside and to realise that there is no reason why they should not go there and resume normal tourist activities. On the contrary, it is absolutely vital for the survival of those tourist industries that people do so.

Mr. Hague: I welcome the further details of the rate relief scheme from the Government. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have called for more details of that over the past week.
However, may I press the right hon. Gentleman to consider more quickly—given that he said that he would consider—the help that could be given to the cash flow of businesses through loans? The crisis for those businesses is now in its fifth week, whatever happens in the next few weeks. The biggest problem facing hotels, shops, tourist attractions and other small businesses is cash flow, even if those businesses were to turn up a little now. The proposal that we have put to the Prime Minister would offer those businesses emergency help in the form of a loan of up to £10,000, which they would not have to pay back until they were making a profit again. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept that scheme, or if he wants to build it on to a different one, will he come back to the House with an alternative to it, and do so as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: Of course we will come back with the proposals that we are making. The relief that we are suggesting should be given to people in respect of tax, VAT and business rates will help those businesses.
In his letter to me, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that, with a large budget surplus, we would be able to offer the £500 million fund that he was asking for, and that that fund would allow for emergency loans of up to £10,000 for a business. In all frankness, even a loan of up to £10,000 will not help a country hotel or a major tourist attraction through this problem.
That is why, in addition to whatever measures of relief we are offering, it is important to make it clear that, although people should obey the restrictions in place in the countryside, it is important for the tourist industry that we send out the clearest possible message that people should not be cancelling their bookings at hotels and tourist attractions. On the contrary, they should be going there and making the most of the tourist industry and trade in a responsible way.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister is right to say that £10,000 would not make a huge difference to a huge tourist attraction. But it would make a huge difference to tens of thousands of small rural businesses, and they are the ones at greatest risk.

On the question of dealing with the outbreak itself, the Prime Minister will be aware that since last Thursday the backlog of infected animals awaiting slaughter has gone up, from 64,000 to 108,000 yesterday. The backlog of dead animals awaiting disposal had doubled to 80,000 as of yesterday. We wi11 not control this outbreak until we clear these backlogs. Will the right hon. Gentleman now agree to a far greater deployment of the Army, with its manpower and its engineering and logistics capabilities, on tasks such as the burial and disposal of carcases?

The Prime Minister: On the measures to control and eradicate the disease, I will deal with the point about the Army. There is a lot of confusion about this issue. The Army has made it quite clear—as the right hon. Gentleman will see from the detailed statement that the Ministry of Defence will issue later today—that there are three different aspects to ensuring that we control and eradicate the disease in the areas most affected. One is the issue of logistics; the second is the issue of slaughter; and the third is the issue of disposal. We have the slaughtermen there, and the contractors who can come in and carry out the disposal. There is no doubt that the principal problem is one of logistics, and of organising and administering those tasks in the areas most affected.
As the disease has progressed over the past few weeks, we have been able to see that it is increasingly concentrated in certain main areas. Indeed, more than half the 46 new cases announced yesterday were in Cumbria and Dumfries, with several more in Devon.
Now, what is important is to use the Army for what it says it will do best—that is, the logistics operations. There are now logistics operations from the Army in each of those main areas; there is a full control and operations centre in each of those areas. That really is, according to all the best advice we have, including that from the farmers' union on the ground, the best way to make sure that we can then organise the operation properly so that the animals are identified, slaughtered and disposed of properly.

Mr. Hague: I am sure that it is right that the main way in which the Army can be used successfully is in a logistical capacity, but this is an urgent, massive and growing problem and only a handful of personnel are being used in a logistical capacity. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said today that MAFF has asked for only 60 soldiers in Devon and the rest are on standby, waiting for word. There are large amounts of military resources on standby.
When there is a desperate shortage of people to help to deal with the crisis, no one in the countryside can understand why the Government are not making use of the thousands of soldiers and heavy machinery that they have at their disposal, and making use of them more urgently than has been done so far. Will the Prime Minister step up, as a matter of urgency, the deployment of the Army to the tasks of which he has spoken?

The Prime Minister: We now have in place the necessary people for the logistics. I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman-[interruption] I simply ask Opposition Members to listen to this, because we have looked at it very carefully in line with the comments of people on the ground: there is not a shortage of slaughtermen; there is


not a shortage of contractors to dispose of the animals. It is necessary, however, to organise the operation properly. There are now the logistics teams in place.
The other problem is a shortage of vets. That also is very important. Let me tell the House what we have done. The daily rate for the vets has been increased from some £160 to £250 per day. There is a new call for private vets. I should say, however, that the normal State Veterinary Service of 220 is running at more than 1,100. However, we will bring in even more, particularly in Cumbria and Devon where they are urgently needed.
In addition, we are ensuring that burial arrangements are being agreed with the Environment Agency, because, as I said a moment ago, burial is preferable to burning. In addition to that, we shall have in place within the next week sufficient rendering capacity so that we will be able to dispose of some 250,000 sheep carcases per week. That is the best way to dispose of those animals—through burial and through rendering.
We have the capacity to do that now. What we need, I repeat, are the logistics teams in place. They are now in place. [Interruption.] I say to Opposition Members who are shouting at me that this has been a situation in which the people on the ground have suddenly had to upgrade the whole nature of their operations in the most extraordinary way. I ask people to spare a thought for the pressure that they have been under.
Now that we can see that the disease is concentrated in certain areas, we are able to concentrate more and more resources on those areas. I think that that is the best way to proceed. In addition, we have proceeded throughout not just according to the advice of the veterinary service, but, at each stage, with the National Farmers Union.

Mr. Hague: The people on the ground have done a magnificent job in upgrading their capability—sometimes they have upgraded their capability faster than the decision-making machinery of Her Majesty's Government has.
On a final point, a huge spectrum of people. ranging from the Liberal Democrat leader of Devon county council to the Cumbria tourist board to Labour Members of Parliament, have raised real questions about whether county council elections in certain areas— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] From all parties. Can elections possibly proceed— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) that he had best be quiet.

Mr. Hague: Labour Members should listen to some of their colleagues. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) has said:
I would be looking to have some kind of delay".
Is he meant to be frit? The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) has said:
There is an argument for postponement".
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has said:
The Government is clueless about the scale of chaos in Cumbria".
Labour Members should listen to their colleagues.

Given that people from different political parties have raised those concerns and given that having the option to delay some local elections requires legislation quickly, is the Prime Minister absolutely sure that he will not regret later doing nothing now?

The Prime Minister: Voices are raised on both sides about this, but we are concentrating, as we should be, on controlling and eradicating the disease.
As for the elections, they are the elections set for 3 May. I understand the feelings of those who say "Let us postpone those elections", and I will of course listen carefully to their representations; I simply ask people to bear in mind two other factors to be weighed in the balance.
The first of those factors is the signal that we would send out to the country. If we sent out a message that, in effect, the democratic process had to go into suspension, that Britain was in a state of quarantine, that we were in some way closed for business—I worry about the effect that that would have on the tourist business. I do ask people to bear that in mind. Many interests need to be taken into account in rural areas.
Secondly, I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman this: postpone until when? For one month, two months, six months? In 1967, this disease went on for eight months. I simply believe that we should weigh these factors sensibly in the balance. Of course I will listen to the representations that are made, but what should be done ultimately is what is right in the interests not just of the countryside but of the whole country—people in the countryside, and people not in the countryside—and that is what we shall do.

Mr. Hague: Very briefly— [Interruption.] The Prime Minister has asked me a question.
May I say—very briefly, given the time—that the Prime Minister must weigh against that the fact that three weeks ago the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that coming to the House for three hours was a distraction from dealing with the crisis? He will have to be happy that for all the authorities in Devon and Cumbria, spending four weeks fighting an election is not a distraction from dealing with the crisis.

The Prime Minister: As I have said, of course I understand the representations of those who are making the case for postponing the elections, and will listen carefully to them. I simply say this to the right hon. Gentleman, if we are quoting individual Ministers or shadow Ministers: I think it was his own shadow Agriculture Minister who denounced the prospect of postponing the local elections just a couple of weeks ago.
Leaving all that aside, the question is, what is the right thing to do? I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that of course I will listen to those representations, but it is important to weigh in the balance the question of what signal we would send if we did indeed postpone the local elections.
I am acutely conscious—because the right hon. Gentleman raised it earlier—of the issue of the tourism industry and businesses in the countryside. What they need, even given the gravity of the situation, is for people to go about their business as normal, as far as is possible. We must send the message out to people that Britain is


not in a state of quarantine; on the contrary, provided that they obey the restrictions in the countryside, people should go and enjoy the countryside as they should.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: The head of tourism in the south-west told me today that the local elections must go ahead, because to delay them would send completely the wrong message to wider Britain and the wider world. Will the Prime Minister ensure, however, that the Government provide accurate and up-to-date information that makes it clear to people that, even in counties that are badly affected—such as Devon—many places are open for business as usual?

The Prime Minister: Of course it is important for us to send that message to people very clearly. [Interruption.]I hope that Opposition Members who are shouting at my hon. Friend realise that I think they have some responsibility to back up that message, and not say to people "Don't go into the countryside." What we should be saying to people is, "Obey the restrictions, but it is important for the tourism industry that people do enjoy the countryside".
There are businesses in Bath, in York, even in London, that are suffering as a result of the drop in the tourism trade. That is why it is so important that on the one hand we send the message that is necessary to control and eradicate the disease, and on the other hand we send the clear message that people should by all means go into the countryside, but they should obey the restrictions that are there.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that this is not the time for politicians to be talking about our livelihoods, in terms of elections, when other people are seeing their livelihoods literally going down the tubes, hour by hour and day by day. [Interruption.] I understand why some Conservative Members are worried about their livelihoods, but that is another story.
Does the Prime Minister share the concern, and, indeed, the view that it is unbelievable, of Ben Gill, president of the National Farmers Union, who has acknowledged today that, much to his dismay, half the abattoirs in this country are closed, despite the current scale of difficulty? Is that not an extraordinary state of affairs and what are the Government going to do about it?

The Prime Minister: Of course it is the case that there are abattoirs that are closed precisely because of the problems that we have had over the disease, but that is why we are seeking to ensure that we open the abattoirs that we can in order to process the animals that are being killed for the food chain now. It is perhaps worth saying to the House again, just to set some of this in context, that, at the moment, we are slaughtering about 250,000 animals a week for normal human consumption in the food chain. Outside the time of the disease, we would normally slaughter about 500,000 each week. It is worth setting that against the 400,000 that we have slaughtered for reasons of foot and mouth disease. We are having to

balance making sure that we are getting animals to slaughter with making sure that the abattoirs themselves are clean and free from disease.

Mr. Kennedy: A couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister properly, although four years too late, called for a serious searching debate in this country about the nature of our farming industry, the rural economy and the whole food chain. Does he acknowledge that one of the things that needs serious searching attention is the absence, all too often, of abattoirs in various parts of the country and the knock-on effect that that is having, not least in the present crisis, with the moving of animals and the traceability of the problem itself? Will the right hon. Gentleman give that urgent attention once we are through the immediate crisis?

The Prime Minister: Of course, the decline in the number of abattoirs—particularly small abattoirs—happened some time ago. I know that there is a serious debate as to whether the absence of sufficient numbers of small abattoirs is a contributory factor in disease spreading—not just foot and mouth, but any type of disease. Again, there are views on both sides of that argument.
As for the question of the long-term future and viability of the farming industry, of course, it is important that, once the immediate difficulties are out of the way, we sit down and look at that very carefully, but it is not a process in which nothing has happened in the past few years. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food reminds me that, last year, we conducted a series of debates and consultations with the farming industry over rural development regulation and over how to change the native of the farming industry over the coming years. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's party participated in those discussions—and very constructively, too. There will be an opportunity for us to consider some of those long-term questions. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, that will await the end of the immediate position which is one of eradicating and controlling the disuse.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Whenever my right hon. Friend chooses to call the day, can he assure the House and indeed the country that he will lead a campaign to save the pounds: that is, £16 billion worth of cuts proposed by the Conservative party—cuts to schools, cuts to hospitals and cuts in the fight against crime? Does he agree that that will be a popular campaign and that it will not need a flat-backed lorry to get it off the ground?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the choices before the country will be very clear. There is a major dividing line between the two political parties. We are in favour of additional investment in our schools, hospitals, police and transport system and the Conservative party is committed to £16 billion worth of cuts in those vital services.

Mr . Nick Hawkins: Despite the Prime Minister's previous waffle about only needing logistical support, does he not realise that, with dying and dead beasts lying in fields and on farms for days, people in the country need support from the Army? Is not the real reason why the Army has not been fully


deployed the existence of an internal Whitehall turf war between the Treasury, MAFF and the MOD? Will the Prime Minister not recognise that he is held responsible by people in the countryside and must sort this out?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no: that is completely and totally untrue. We have made it clear that there are no resource restrictions on dealing with this disease at all. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that this Government —in spite of the fact that the last Government paid out not a single penny piece in agrimonetary compensation —have pulled down some £600 million of agrimonetary compensation since we have been in office. We are deploying the Army as we are because that is the united view not simply of MAFF, but of the Ministry of Defence and the Army experts. The Army stands ready and willing to do whatever is necessary.
I repeat that there is not a shortage of slaughtermen, and there is not a shortage —at the moment, at any rate —of contractors to do the work. There is, however, a shortage of a proper logistical operation to tie the whole administration together in those areas where the disease is at its strongest. It is precisely that operation that the Army is now carrying out.

Mr. Llew Smith: Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the activities of the steel company Corus which, on the day it was formed, handed over £700 million in sweeteners to its shareholders; it then appropriated £900 million from the, workers' pension fund; it then wasted £135 million in buying up firms abroad; it then compensated an incompetent former chief executive to the tune of millions of pounds; and yet it has announced the closure of one of the most efficient steel plants in the world, in my constituency of Blaenau Gwent, for reasons that the company describes as financial?

The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that we have asked the company to reconsider its decision. I pay tribute to the trade unions for the way in which they have assembled a package to save their jobs and their industry. It is a proper, commercial package that has been properly worked out and would make a profit for the company. It is exactly for those reasons that we have asked the company to reconsider. We still hope that it will hear that call and reconsider the decision that has caused such devastation in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. James Paice: Despite the Prime Minister's earlier comments, do not the figures speak for themselves? The rapidly lengthening list of animals awaiting slaughter shows that the time scale between diagnosis and slaughter is too long and is

probably part of the cause of the increasing rate of outbreak of the disease. Does he agree that in light of the delays and the need for speed, now is not the time for any haggling over small aspects of valuation; for squabbling between different Departments; for waiting for the Environment Agency to look at every single aspect of the matter; and for political correctness about not using hunt servants as slaughtermen? Will the Prime Minister do everything he can to bang heads together and to make sure that those actions are carried out as quickly as possible?

The Prime Minister: Of course; that is precisely what we are doing. Before the hon. Gentleman shakes his head, he might at least listen to my answer. For example, there has been a problem —in certain parts of the country, at any rate —in agreeing the proper price for the slaughtered animal. We are agreeing a tariff that will quicken the valuation process. For example, we are slaughtering before valuation where necessary. For example, slaughter before lab tests —the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition last week —is now happening in 80 per cent. of the cases and is happening wherever necessary. In relation to the Environment Agency, there is an issue in respect of water tables. We cannot simply ignore that or pretend that it does not exist. However, we are working with the agency to clear any obstructions so that we can use burial, which is far more effective than burning.
In relation to any bureaucratic rules —for example, those which say that vets, having visited an inspected farm, cannot visit a new farm —we are changing all those rules and removing whatever bureaucratic obstacles we responsibly can on the advice of the chief veterinary officer. We are putting in place a process for checking all the flocks in non-infected areas so that they can be declared non-infected as soon as possible. All of that is being done.
In particular, the time for slaughter is being shortened considerably and, as a result of the logistical exercise that I have just described, we will be able, over the coming week, to shorten the time between slaughter and disposal. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that all of this has been required as we have seen how the disease has been concentrated in certain areas. The disease is in certain areas and not in others. Even though the situation is immensely grave, it is worth emphasising once again that, at present, less than 1 per cent. of the livestock of this country has been subject to slaughter.
What is important is that, as we see how the disease is concentrated, we put in a more and more intense effort into those areas, and that we are now doing. People at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and on the ground are spending every hour that they can working on the problem. It is right that we recognise the contribution that they have made.

Equal Pay (Audit)

Mr. Vernon Coaker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require employers to carry out an audit of their pay structures' compliance with the provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970—[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps hon. Members would leave the Chamber quietly.

Mr. Coaker: I shall begin by publicly thanking the Equal Opportunities Commission for its help, and by congratulating it on its recently published report entitled "Just Pay".
In 1970, my noble Friend Baroness Castle, who was then First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, introduced the Second Reading of the Equal Pay (No. 2) Bill. I reread her inspirational speech, and found many moving quotes that set the scene for today's debate. She said:
There can be no doubt that this afternoon we are witnessing another historic advance in the struggle against discrimination in our society, this time against discrimination on grounds of sex … While other people have talked—lots of people have talked—we intend to make equal pay for equal work a reality".
She went on to say:
The concept of equal pay for equal work is so self-evidently right and just that it has been part of our national thinking for a very long time … Indeed, as far back as 1888, the TUC first endorsed the principle of the same wages for the same work. —[Official Report, 9 February 1970; Vol. 795, c. 914.]
Some 30 years after those remarks, what would Baroness Castle make of the progress that we have made? I think that there would be pride in the progress that has been made, but disappointment that equal pay is still not a reality. Thirty years after the 1970 Act, discrimination in pay is still a reality for many thousands of women. Equal pay for equal work may have been part of our national thinking for a long time, but it clearly still requires major national action. Our practice has often fallen far short of the ideal.
The pay gap between men and women has narrowed since the 1970 Act was passed. In 1970, the gap stood at 31 per cent. It is smaller in 2001, but women working full time still earn, on average, 18 per cent. less per hour than men. Women working part time earn 39 per cent. less per hour than male full-time workers. It is clear, therefore, that the initial progress made soon after the 1970 Act became law in 1975 has faltered and that the pay gap, especially for women part-timers remains stubbornly high.
That is as unacceptable as it has always been, but the differential is striking when we consider the accepted view of society today. We believe that we are a modern society, free of the prejudices and injustices of the past. In many respects, that is true: there is more equality of opportunity, and discrimination in all its forms is being dealt with, but so much more remains to be done.
Continuing with that work fits in well with the Government's agenda of bringing about social inclusion and delivering greater equality of opportunity. Eliminating the gender pay gap makes a statement about the sort of society that we all want—a society in which ability and talent are what count, and in which everyone's ability is utilised to the full.
The elimination of the gender pay gap would improve the quality of life of working women, both now and in the future, and help to tackle child poverty. However, there are also sound business reasons for tackling the pay gap, as many employers already recognise. Fair pay makes recruitment and retention easier and increases productivity.
So what are the reasons for the continuing existence of the gender pay gap? The "Just Pay" report identifies a number of key factors that need to be addressed. They include discrimination in pay and occupational segregation, as well as the unequal impact of women's family responsibilities. The cumbersome nature of the tribunal processes available to women seeking to tackle pay inequality also causes problems.
The Government have taken, or are about to take, action on some of these issues and a number of reforms are in place. Measures such as higher maternity pay, the working families tax, credit, the children's tax credit, new rights for parental leave, trade union recognition, better child care and, of course, the minimum wage are making a huge difference to the position of women and families in our society. However, the challenge of equal pay remains, and neither the Government nor those outside who campaign for this must shirk it.
I know that the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), is to bring forward proposals to speed up the industrial tribunal system, under which women try to air their grievances. In 1998–99 it was taking an average of 19 months to go through the system. Other proposals will include continuing to improve child care and providing real choice for women.
Let us look at the impact of occupational segregation on the gender pay gap. The fundamental issue is the valuation of women's work in the labour market and, in particular, the work of part-timers. The low status in the labour market of part-timers—predominantly women—is a major problem that again highlights how crucial education and training are.
The part of the gap caused by pay discrimination is the focus of my Bill. The Equal Opportunities Commission estimates that that accounts for 25 to 50 per cent. of the pay gap. Such discrimination is not necessarily intentional, but can result from procedures and policies that unwittingly fail to give women equal pay. If employers are not required to audit their pay structures to ensure conformity with the Equal Pay Act 1970, how do we know what is going on?
The figures according to the new earnings survey in April 2000 show that in my region of the east midlands, in craft and related occupations, women's earnings are 62 per cent. of male earnings—nearly a third less. In sales occupations, the figure is 68 per cent. Overall, in all occupations in the east midlands, women earn 74 per cent. —roughly three quarters—of what men earn.
To quote a specific national example, the recent Bett report into higher education showed a number of examples of unequal pay. Females were paid less in almost all occupations and at all grades in universities. The earnings of female academics were, on average, £4,000 less than those of male academics. If it is happening in that field, among highly educated women, one can imagine some of the problems and difficulties


experienced elsewhere. I am pleased that the Government are starting to address the issue in the higher education sector.
The Equal Opportunities Commission conducted additional research, seeking evidence from employers about their pay practice. Some 301 employers were surveyed by National Opinion Poll. The key findings were that 11 per cent. of all respondents said that women progressed more slowly than men. Some 32 per cent. of public sector employees conceded that jobs done mainly by men had access to bonus or performance payments, whereas those done mainly by women did not. Twelve per cent. said that part-timers did not have access to occupational pensions.
It is for those reasons—the reality of life in our society—that my Bill is necessary. It would require an audit by employers of their pay structures to see whether they complied with the law. It is clear that without such a review, employers will not be able to judge whether they comply. According to the Equal Opportunities Commission survey, only a third of respondents had conducted any review of their pay system. In a more flexible job market, with more individual negotiation and considerable variety in the way in which people are paid, we must do more to ensure that such procedures are put in place. How much longer must we wait? I believe that most people would have expected us to win that challenge by now.
At the end of her speech in 1970, Baroness Castle said:
There is just one thing I would like to say in conclusion. It is to pay a tribute to all those who have argued and striven over the past years for equal pay for women, and in particular to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have championed the cause which is coming to such happy fruition today."—[Official Report, 9 February 1970; Vol. 795, c.929.]
I hope that my ten-minute Bill can play a small part in continuing the effort to make equal pay a reality and to finish the task begun by those who went before us.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Vernon Coaker, Gillian Merron, Liz Blackman, Ms Joan Ryan, Mr. Derek Twigg, Ann Keen, Angela Smith, Ms Julie Morgan, Mr. Chris Pond, Ms Ruth Kelly, Mr. Jonathan Shaw and Mr. John Heppell.

EQUAL PAY (AUDIT)

Mr. Vernon Coaker accordingly presented a Bill to require employers to carry out an audit of their pay structures' compliance with the provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970: And the same was real the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 71].

Opposition Day

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Foot and Mouth Disease

Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have put a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I have also selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call Mr. Nick Brown to move the debate. [Interruption.] I apologise. I call Mr. Tim Yeo.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
That this House expresses its deep concern about the increasing extent of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, its appreciation of the work the vets and others involved in efforts to contain the disease and reduce its effects and its sympathy for farmers and those involved in other businesses in rural areas whose livelihoods are under such severe threat: supports the Government's objective of containing the outbreak and the measures it has announced so far; but regrets that the Government has not acted more swiftly and effectively in tackling the crisis; and urges the Government to take immediate and practical steps to help the worst affected areas of the country, including the adoption of a strengthened slaughter policy, an increased role for the army in disposing of carcases, the deployment of more veterinary resources and a business rate exemption for affected businesses.
You may be anticipating events, Mr. Speaker, in asking the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) to move an Opposition debate.
Britain's livestock industry is in peril. The rural economy is haemorrhaging. There is visible evidence day by day that the gathering crisis is growing. As of last night, more than 100,000 animals were awaiting slaughter and more than 80,000 carcases were rotting in the open air. In the six days since the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last came to the House to make a statement, the number of confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease has risen by more than two thirds, to 411, and the number of animals condemned for destruction has almost doubled to 350,000.
The crisis is spiralling out of control. The Prime Minister's bland words a few moments ago could have been spoken only by a man ignorant of what is happening in his own country, is contemptuous of those communities whose prosperity his policies have done so much to damage and is still refusing to devote the resources that the crisis requires for its resolution. [Interruption.]
Contrary to the politicking of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food accuses me from his sedentary position, let me make it clear that the Opposition will continue to give the Government full backing for measures that are necessary and effective if we are to get the disease under control. Even when they are unpopular, as with the large-scale cull proposed last week, we shall not shrink from giving our support if it is right to do so.
I pay tribute again to vets and others in the front line for their efforts to contain the disease. I offer my personal sympathy, too, to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his departmental colleagues. They are carrying a heavy burden on behalf not just of Government, but of the nation. They are clearly working under enormous pressure.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the divisional veterinary officer in Staffordshire faces a difficult situation? A constituent of mine, Christopher Jackson of Bagots Pigs, finds himself in breach of welfare regulations because his pigs have given birth to piglets, causing overcrowding, yet he has been told that he can neither slaughter nor move the pigs, and the divisional veterinary officer has said that he has had absolutely no guidance from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and. Food.

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend raises an important point; the farmer whose position he describes so succinctly is by no means alone in facing such difficulties. The Minister will have paid careful attention to my hon. Friend's point and I hope that, in the course of the next 24 hours, someone in the Minister's office will be able to get a message to my hon. Friend's constituent to deal with that impossible situation.
Above all, our hearts must go out to farmers: working with livestock is not just a job—it is a way of life. The men, women and children who see the animals that they have reared prematurely destroyed are losing not only their livelihood but part of their family. I hope that the thoughts of every hon. Member are with them at this time of profound distress.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), one of my constituents is in a similar predicament. He has 2,500 sheep in Staffordshire; he wants to bring them back to Worcestershire but he cannot move them because of a D notice on the Worcestershire farm. Sadly, we have foot and mouth in Worcestershire. He, too, has an incredible animal welfare problem: his sheep are trying to graze in muddy fields where there is no grass and the ewes are lambing. In normal circumstances, he would be prosecuted on animal welfare grounds. Will my hon. Friend put to the Minister the case for such animals to be culled under the programme?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. She describes a problem that faces a large number of farmers. We have raised it with the Minister, and I know that he is very conscious of it. The solution is not easy. We do not want to weaken the measures that have been taken to try to curb the disease, but it is those measures that prevent many farmers from moving lambing ewes to the places where they want them to be. As a result, there are serious animal welfare consequences. I know that the Minister will have taken note of that point; I intend to return to it later and to suggest a way forward.
We are also concerned about the effect of the crisis on other industries. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition proposed a new scheme to give businesses in rural areas financial help in the form of a loan of up to £10,000, repayable, when they return to profitability, by a surcharge on future tax bills.
In the past half-hour, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) has returned from the British travel trade fair in Birmingham, where he met people from throughout the country who are charged with the difficult task of supporting the tourism industry. People are becoming frustrated and angry at the lack of positive action. They have received plenty of sympathy and warm

words, but they want clarity and financial help to deal with a cash-flow problem that becomes more acute day by day.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On financial packages, will my hon. Friend focus on national insurance contributions? Perhaps such contributions could be deferred in order to keep people in employment. Will he seek an assurance from the Government that no interest will be payable on deferred tax and VAT?

Mr. Yeo: My right hon. and learned Friend makes two important points. Like many Conservative Members, he was disappointed by the lack of tangible measures to help from the Minister for the Environment, who spoke yesterday after the second meeting of the taskforce. My right hon. and learned Friend has proposed an extremely practical way to help—relief from national insurance contributions—that, no doubt, could be introduced quickly.

Mr. Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend will be aware that compensation for farmers whose livestock had to be killed as a result of foot and mouth is paid at today's market price and that that is well down on recent prices, which themselves were low enough. Will my hon. Friend press the Government to ensure that compensation for destroyed herds and flocks is paid at a reasonable rate and not at today's market price?

Mr. Yeo: The Minister will have heard that point. He was shaking his head as my hon. and learned Friend spoke—I believe that compensation is now being paid at pre-crisis levels. However, the point is important and the fact that my hon. and learned Friend felt it necessary to raise it shows that the message about the basis on which compensation is paid has not yet been effectively communicated to all the farmers in his constituency and in many other constituencies.

Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister has very clearly stated that no consequential loss payments will be made. Will my hon. Friend seek assistance from the Ministry to help those farmers who have received no income for the past five weeks and are facing severe hardship because their farms are covered by a form D, or are in an exclusion zone?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend describes a problem faced by a large number of farmers. We have made it clear that, given the severity of the problem on this occasion, we believe that it would be right to give help for consequential losses to a number of carefully defined farmers. Without such help, many farmers will find that survival is a matter of weeks, possibly even days, and unless the principle of providing help for consequential losses is accepted, a chilling message will be sent to them, because there is no other prospect of their receiving any kind of relief.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: If the principle of help for consequential losses were accepted, where would the hon. Gentleman draw the line? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food invited the hon. Gentleman to write to him a few weeks ago, so will he inform the House where the line would be drawn?

Mr. Yeo: We have already suggested a number of categories, one of which includes farmers whose cattle


pass the age of 30 months, at which point the value of the cattle suffers an unrecoverable decrease. Movement restrictions can prevent farmers from realising the market value before cattle reach the age of 30 months. They are the sort of people to whom compensation should be paid for their consequential losses.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I certainly understand what my hon. Friend says, and there is no doubt that compensation and consequential loss are greatly exercising the minds of all those involved in this tragic crisis, but much greater than that is the spirit of fear that is engulfing agricultural communities, whether or not their areas are affected by foot and mouth disease. I have today been contacted by Jonathan Barber, eastern region secretary of the National Sheep Association. He has two main areas of concern: first, the speed at which the virus is spreading is, in his view, completely out of control and, secondly, there are not enough people to deal with the problem. That is the fear engaging the minds of people in East Anglia and all over the country, even in those areas fortunate enough, at the moment, not to be affected directly by foot and mouth.

Mr. Yeo: My right hon. Friend speaks with great experience of the industry. The same fear exists in my constituency, as the disease appears to be spreading, despite comments from the Prime Minister. A case was confirmed in a constituency neighbouring mine, just the other side of the county boundary in north Essex, so the disease is getting closer to Suffolk and Norfolk. A real feeling of fear exists in farming communities there, and it is increased by what appears to be the lack of urgency in the measures being taken in some parts of the country to get on top of the problem.
We have backed the main steps that the Government have taken to date. We want to continue a bipartisan approach, so far as we can, to what is clearly a major national crisis, but it is our duty, as the Opposition, to speak out when we believe things are going wrong and the Government's response is inadequate. Since we last debated foot and mouth, there have been worrying signs of dither and confusion inside the Government. To claim, as the Minister regularly does, that the situation is under control may please the Prime Minister, as he ponders his election timetable, but it is in stark contrast to the facts on the ground.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that, even now, we are getting mixed messages from the Government and different Departments? I have just received by fax a copy of a leaflet that Derbyshire county council is issuing in the Peak district, which receives more than 20 million visitors a year. It urges:
Help us to protect our countryside-don't visit unless you have to.
How does that compare with what was said yesterday by the Minister for the Environment, who told people to visit the countryside?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I was going to come to it shortly. Conflicting messages are now coming out of different branches of government. Indeed, I sympathise particularly with the position of

county councils, which simply do not know what instructions they should give people who want to visit their areas.

Dr. Gavin Strang: The Conservative party has had five weeks to propose the swifter and more effective policies described in the Opposition motion. I scoured the records this morning and could find no trace of any such policies from the Conservative party. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has introduced the policies, including the pre-emptive slaughter policy, to deal with the crisis? Are not the Opposition jumping on the back of a national crisis to make political capital? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members not to shout. The farmers and the families about whom we are worried might misunderstand hon. Members if they shout across the Chamber.

Mr. Yeo: The intervention of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) does him little credit. He has in the past taken part in some of these debates in a rather better informed and constructive manner. Had he attended any one of the five previous occasions on which the subject was discussed in the House, he would have heard me and my hon. Friends suggest specific and constructive measures, and I shall do so again today. Now that he has forced me to do it, I shall remind the House of how many days ago we said that certain things should be done.
Let me go back to Sunday 11 March, a pivotal day in the crisis. The Minister said on television that the situation was under control but, on the same day, I called for the Army to be brought in to tackle the backlog of unburied carcases and unslaughtered animals. In the 10 days since, the number of confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease has trebled; the number of unburied carcases is rising by 16,000 a day; and, in the last six days, the number of animals awaiting slaughter has risen by two thirds to well over 100,000.
If the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh had been paying attention, he would have seen that the policy that we were recommending would have addressed the situation. Indeed, instead of making complacent and unfounded claims, the Minister would have served farmers and the whole country better if he had acted on the constructive suggestions that I made on 11 March, which were repeated on a wider front two days later by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
It is now 10 days since we called for the Army to be given a hands-on role in carcase disposal; it is seven days since we called for vets to be given discretion to order and carry out slaughter on suspicion; and it is five days since we called for on-farm burial to take place wherever it is environmentally safe to do so. Not one of those common-sense steps has been taken. As a direct result, the crisis today is far worse than it need have been. Farming today is in dire peril and it deserves a far more urgent response from Ministers than it is now receiving.
Let me call once again for the Government to announce this afternoon that, first, the Army will be deployed more comprehensively than at present. It is no disrespect to the


service men and women who were sent yesterday to Devon to point out that it is a ludicrously feeble use of a major national resource. The Government must make the full engineering and logistic assets of the Army available at once. With the number of unburied carcases mounting at the rate of 16,000 a day, it is grossly irresponsible not to allow the Army to engage directly in a task that is plainly beyond the capacity of those now addressing it.
Secondly, vets must be given authority to order the immediate slaughter of animals when there is clinical evidence to justify it and to ensure that the slaughter is carried out at once. That policy was successfully pursued in 1967, and the delays that are occurring are extremely dangerous. There is growing evidence that the disease is spreading from farm to farm, and leaving 100,000 animals wandering around in the open air while they await slaughter is simply folly.

Dr. George Turner: My understanding is that a vet has only to make a telephone call to obtain permission to go ahead with slaughter on clinical grounds. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that not even that call is necessary when we know that many vets in the field are fresh to this problem?

Mr. Yeo: We are receiving reports from all over the country of several days' delay from when vets want to carry out the slaughter to when it takes place. If the hon. Gentleman listens to what is happening outside the House instead of reading out Labour party press releases, he might be better informed before he intervenes.

Mr. Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is probably not aware that, in the Select Committee on Agriculture this morning, the chief veterinary officer acknowledged that there were problems in getting animals slaughtered quickly enough. He recommended that, instead of using pistols as in 1967, vets use two drugs, Expirol or Euthatal, and he said that he would look into it.

Mr. Yeo: I am glad to hear that the Government are belatedly considering assisting vets to carry out an extremely urgent task. I hope that no more time will be lost before the problem is addressed. Whatever the message from central Government, we know that delays are occurring and we run the risk of inspection spreading still further.

Mr. Peter Luff: I am glad that my hon. Friend makes that point. I was in Worcestershire yesterday talking to a friend of mine whose pedigree longhorn herd was put down on Monday. There has been no cattle or livestock movement on or off that farm for three months. It is clear that the disease spread from another farm where the animals were not slaughtered sufficiently quickly.

Mr. Yeo: I am afraid that that is not an isolated case. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Although there is ground for criticism, does the hon. Gentleman

accept that, in Cumbria, the time between clinical diagnosis and slaughter has been reduced to between 24 and 36 hours in most cases?

Mr. Yeo: The fact remains that even on the Ministry's figures, the number of animals awaiting slaughter is growing rapidly. It is 108,000 today and was about 60,000 a week ago. The problem is getting out of control. The Government are behind the game.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend will know that Mr. Huntbach, who suffered the second outbreak in Cheshire, which was seriously devastated in 1967. attempted last Friday night to call the Ministry, as did the local vet. There was no answer and no answering machine, so the telephones are not being manned 24 hours. Having failed to contact the Stafford office, he tried Worcester, which told him to call Stafford again. Eventually, he was given a fax number, but it took 24 hours before contact was made. That is where the delay is occurring. The offices need to be fully staffed now.

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I should make it clear that the Opposition's quarrel is not with Ministry officials at the sharp end, who are working under enormous pressure and are clearly overstretched, but with Ministers and Labour Members, who claim that the situation is under control when plainly it is not. They say that delays are not occurring when they obviously are. It is not the fault of officials that they are not available to answer the telephone 24 hours a day; it is obviously beyond their capacity to do so.
The Minister must know about the countless delays. The Government's claims are absurd. Farmers and hon. Friends call me six or seven times an hour every day with examples similar to the case outlined by my hon. Friend. If I am getting those calls, the Minister's office must be receiving ten times as many. It is not helpful to make claims that are plainly unfounded.

Mr. David Tredinnick: On a related matter, the disease was diagnosed at Higham Lane in my constituency on Sunday. Some heifers with blisters were shot on Monday, but 250 cows were still alive yesterday. The Atherstone hunt kennels are across the road. The hunt's servants are qualified as slaughtermen and could be deployed to kill the animals. Does my hon. Friend agree that political correctness is preventing those people from being used to assist in the crisis?

Mr. Yeo: I shall address the problem of resources to carry out the slaughter in a moment. My hon. Friend makes an important point.
The third policy is the need for the immediate introduction of on-farm burial, which was used widely in 1967. On Monday, the chief veterinary officer described burial as the ideal option. The Environment Agency should already have indicated where the water table makes burial unsafe for human health reasons. Piles of rotting carcases are themselves a serious environmental and health hazard, and I find it hard to believe that there are no areas where on-farm burial can safely be used.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about on-farm burial, but is not the difference


between 1967 and now the fact that we have BSE in our cattle, and we do not want to turn an animal disease into a human problem?

Mr. Yeo: There are a number of differences between the 1967 outbreak and the present one However, it is over four weeks since we first learned of the problem, and the Environment Agency should by now be able to advise on those parts of the country where on-farm burial would be a safe alternative to other disposal methods, and I am disappointed that it is still not being used to a significant extent.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that most farmers know exactly where on their land they could bury animals, whether or not there is a high water table? Will he acknowledge that in 1967, when the problem was tackled within 24 hours at most, stock was buried on farms and there was no adverse reaction whatever from that process?

Mr. Yeo: The fact that no damage appears to have been done by the widespread use of on-farm burial is important. As my hon. Friend says, farmers will usually know what parts of their land are suitable. They should be able to establish, perhaps just by a phone call to the regional office of the Environment Agency, whether approval can be given straight away. Regional offices will also have information about the location of aquifers and so on, so there should be no difficulty getting an immediate answer. It is hard to understand why that quick, simple disposal method is not being more widely used.

Sir Michael Spicer: Will my hon. Friend press the Minister for an immediate decision, and not just a general assurance that he will look into the matter? Certainly in Worcestershire, with the rendering situation as it is, thousands of can ases will be lying around not for days but for weeks. This matter needs immediate attention.

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. It is clear from the figures that I have quoted that, far from being kept under control, the problem is getting worse day by day. As I said, between Monday and Tuesday, the number of unburied carcases rose by 16,000. If that is to continue for any length of time, it is an alarming prospect.
The country cannot understand why the simple, common-sense measures that we are calling for are not being implemented immediately. On wider policy issues, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) mentioned, the Government must stop sending out conflicting messages. Even within the Ministry last Thursday there was confusion about whether the proposed new large-scale cull in Cumbria included cattle. That caused alarm in the region, and the position was later clarified, but it underlines the need for an accurate presentation of any new Government measures.
Now we are told that the cull, which last week was said to be a necessary tactic to curb the spread of foot and mouth disease, may be postponed. On what basis was the original decision taken? What has happened to make the policy less urgent? Some of the questions that I faxed to the Minister's office last night are relevant. In particular, what is the scientific advice for selecting a 3 km radius for the clean-ring strategy, and for excluding cattle from the clean-ring strategy cull?
Confusion has also emerged because of contradictory statements about the countryside. The Minister has, quite properly, issued warnings about not visiting livestock areas. He has been consistent in that and we support him, although it is becoming harder now to judge which farmland is a livestock area because clearly a lot of it does not have livestock. We should err on the side of caution. However, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which seem to be unrepresented here. are telling a very different story. Indeed, it might have been helpful if Ministers who are supposed to be responsible for the taskforce had taken the trouble to attend the debate. Given the lack of understanding shown by the taskforce of the scale and urgency of the problem, they might have benefited from being here because they would have learned a bit more about the problem.

Mr. John Bercow: Everybody has noted what my hon. Friend has just said. Given the importance of the national crisis, the urgent need for steps to tackle it and the constructive measures suggested by my hon. Friend, can he explain why, of more than 300 Labour Back Benchers, fewer that two dozen are present?

Mr. Yeo: I am afraid that I cannot shed any light on that but, as my hon. Friend knows, it is part of a pattern. When the crisis in the countryside is debated, the Government Benches tend to be thinly populated.
Last week, the Minister for the Environment spoke about what he called "safe" areas. Can the Minister of Agriculture enlighten us about how a safe area can be identified, given that the lengthy incubation period means that even areas that do not have the disease may be about to suffer an outbreak? Yesterday, the Minister for the Environment told us that the countryside was open for business. That statement has confused the public because it suggests that there are differences of view inside the Government. It creates the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire described in relation to Derbyshire county council, which must decide whether to reopen rights of way and footpaths.
The right approach is to say that getting foot and mouth disease under control is the overriding aim. Nothing should be done that might jeopardise progress towards that goal. Even non-farming businesses that are suffering, such as tourism, will benefit most if foot and mouth is contained and exterminated. That is the only permanent solution to the problem. Timely action along the lines that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I have been suggesting for some time will help to achieve that solution, curb the spread of foot and mouth disease and rebuild confidence in the countryside. Further delay by the Government will raise fears that they are still not ready to respond on the necessary scale.
The subject of timely action brings me to a further point. The Minister will be aware that, for some days, rumours have been circulating that his Ministry was making specific preparations to deal with an outbreak of foot and mouth disease some weeks before the first case was confirmed. I have no means of knowing whether those rumours are true. If they are, the implications are very profound indeed.
Will the Minister make clear to the House at the earliest opportunity—this afternoon, I hope—exactly when the Ministry was notified of any suspected cases of foot and


mouth disease? Will he also explain the basis on which the Ministry makes contingency plans to deal with foot and mouth? Are those plans regularly updated? If so, in what way? Is there an explanation for the fact that someone who has been approached to supply timber sleepers in case incineration is required has told broadcasters that she had not been contacted by the Ministry since the 1967 outbreak? If the contingency plans involve regular contact in the normal course of events, I hope that the Minister can explain why that person has suddenly reappeared on the list in that rather unusual way.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend may like to point out to the Minister that, as I understand it, underwriters at Lloyd's received inquiries from the German equivalent of the NFU about getting exceptional insurance for foot and mouth before Christmas.

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend suggests another important line of inquiry, which reminds me to ask the Minister whether any officials in the British Government had contact with officials in other Governments and European Union institutions prior to the confirmation of the outbreak in Britain on 19 February. As I said, there are persistent rumours relating to several different aspects of the outbreak. At the very least, there were suspicions in the Ministry about the possibility of an outbreak occurring. Even if the Minister was unaware of such suspicions, I am sure that he will want to make inquiries among his officials to find out at what level and in which offices they might have arisen.
Let me return to the resources that are available for curbing the spread of the disease. I understand that there is now a shortage of vets. Is the Minister satisfied that the private sector is being used as much as necessary? I hope that resource constraints are not preventing more use of vets from private practice. Are retired vets being returned to the state veterinary service, or are there obstacles to prevent that from happening? Some retired vets may have invaluable inexperience of foot and mouth.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Will my hon. Friend also seek to discover whether any positive attempt has been made to recruit members of the veterinary profession? I understand that it is relatively easy to pick up additional veterinary resources from abroad, but it has been reported to me that, for whatever reason, a lack of attention has been paid to options such as approaching private veterinary practitioners in this country to see whether they have spare vets who could help to deal with the outbreak.

Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. He has a great deal of experience in the industry and, like others, he shares my concern that there may be a repository of expertise that is still not being fully utilised. Earlier in the week, we heard from the chief vet that he was concerned about the shortage of vets and about overstretch among those who work in the state veterinary service.
Where slaughter is delayed, is full use being made of the slaughtermen attached to hunts? That issue has already been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). I understand that the Countryside

Alliance is ready to make additional slaughtermen available at very short notice. I hope, therefore, that whatever the reasons for the mounting numbers of unslaughtered animals, the figures are not increasing because of any reluctance on the part of officials. Such officials will not necessarily be in London; they could be in the regions. Will the Minister confirm that appropriate instructions have been given to regional offices to ensure that they take advantage of that resource? Furthermore, can slaughtermen employed in abattoirs that are currently closed because of the outbreak also be deployed?
Now that we are four weeks into the outbreak, clear regional differences are emerging. Of course, the overriding aim is to contain the disease and to prevent it from spreading, and no risks must be run that would jeopardise progress towards that goal. The Minister has previously acknowledged the problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) with regard to ewes in the lambing season. These problems are now acute in a number of areas. I recognise the difficulty of trying to alleviate them without running unacceptable risks such as those that I have mentioned. However, is it possible on a short-term basis to authorise vets in private practice to license limited movements of sheep over short distances? Could vets issue such authorisation when they, in conjunction with farmers and any other local people who are directly concerned, are satisfied that it is safe to do so?
I should like to mention two further questions that I faxed to the Minister last night. Why are only sheep traced from markets to be destroyed, and not pigs or cattle on the farm where the sheep are now located? What is the scientific advice concerning infectivity of dead animals, not least with regard to attacks by foxes or other vermin, and how does that relate to the ban on meat imports from foot and mouth countries?
I should like to speak about many other detailed matters, but I know that many hon. Members want to raise important constituency matters and I must leave time for them to do so. This is a crisis that is getting worse, not better, and which needs to be at the top not only of the Minister's agenda, but of that of the Prime Minister. More than one industry is now suffering serious damage and time is of the essence in the response. The Opposition are ready to back any emergency measures that are needed to tackle the problem. The Government should now act with greater urgency and on a bigger scale than hitherto. I commend our motion to the House.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
expresses grave concern about the very serious effect of the current foot and mouth outbreak on farmers, the livestock industry and the wider rural economy; supports the firm and rapid action taken by the Government to control the spread of the disease, identify outbreaks and slaughter and dispose of animals that are infected or `at risk'; pays tribute to all those who are continuing to work around the clock to combat this devastating disease; endorses the Government's policy of intensifying disease control measures in areas of high infectivity and working towards modifying controls in areas that have remained free of the disease; expresses deepest sympathy to those farmers whose herds and flocks have been slaughtered in order to control the disease; and welcomes the Government's provision of financial support to farmers including


£156 million in extra agrimonetary compensation and a preliminary package of measures to assist the wider rural economy including temporary business rate relief for affected businesses.
Hon. Members will notice that the amendment is not very different from the motion. I hope that we can continue to deal with matters in a relatively bipartisan manner.
I wish to take the opportunity to update hon. Members on the latest position on the foot and mouth disease outbreak, and then set out the Government's response to the matters that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) perfectly properly raised.
At 1 pm today, there were 410 confirmed cases in Great Britain and one case in Northern Ireland. Out of a total United Kingdom cattle, sheep and pig population of more than 55 million, 390,000 animals have been authorised for slaughter, and 262,000 have already been slaughtered.
There are two confirmed cases in cattle on farms in east Holland, and two suspected cases. The link appears to be a slaughterhouse in Holland where sheep imported from France were slaughtered. A European Commission decision to block exports is expected later today.
The Dutch Government have declared an intention to use ring vaccination. The Commission is applying strict conditions, including the early slaughter of vaccinated animals. An emergency meeting of the European Union Standing Veterinary Committee will take place on Friday.
Out of 160,000 livestock farms in the UK, 1,937 have been placed under restriction because of a confirmed or suspected case of the disease. We have been able to lift restrictions on more than 1,077 of those farms, leaving 860 still restricted.

Mr. John Redwood: Outside the worst affected areas, there are restrictions on movement. One of my constituents, who has a sheep farm, wanted to move his sheep for lambing. He was told that he could not. He wanted to move them so that they could have some grass because they were running out of food and needed attention. In 48 hours, he got four different versions of what he could do in the ensuing week. Will Ministers look into that urgently, and provide strong, clear and consistent guidance so that farmers who are worried to death know what they can do within the rules?

Mr. Brown: As other Conservative Members can tell the right hon. Gentleman, those matters have been much discussed in the House over the past few weeks. The whole of Great Britain is a controlled zone. There are no unauthorised, unlicensed movements of livestock—at least, there are not supposed to be. A range of schemes has been designed to help the trade and animal welfare. I will say more about that later.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Following on from the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), on Thursday, the Minister announced a voluntary welfare disposal scheme, which, we believed, would affect sheep and pigs. On that day, I asked the Minister when it would start, and whether it could begin within 48 hours because people were desperate. Nearly a week later, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food office in Leicester has received no communication from MAFF to explain the way in which the scheme will work. Mr. Stevens in my

constituency is absolutely desperate. Will the Minister apply his ministerial toecap to the posterior of his officials to ensure that they communicate with people on the ground? Mr. Stevens can then get on with slaughtering his fattened sheep within 24 or 48 hours.

Mr. Brown: As the person who devised the scheme over the long, hot summer last year for the classical swine fever outbreak, I am as keen on it as anyone.

Mr. Duncan: What is the delay?

Mr. Brown: It all sounds so easy, but there are special problems in the sheep sector. A small part of the market—approximately 37 per cent. —is working normally, but the market price for the product that people want to move has collapsed. There is a question about the rate one would pay under the welfare scheme for animals that are coming into it without disrupting the part of the market that is working normally. The Intervention Board is considering that with the industry.

Mr. John Townend: Delay, delay, delay.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman may shout, "Delay, delay, delay", but people will not willingly offer their animals for a scheme without knowing what they will be paid. Frankly, I do not blame them. If hon. Members will allow me, perhaps I can make some progress.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: I always give way to hon. Members, and I shall, but I wish to make some progress first.
The development of the disease in the United Kingdom continues to reflect the pattern that we identified from the start. The continuing rise in outbreaks largely reflects the spread of infection before the first outbreak was confirmed. The spread mostly occurred in sheep, which do not always show clear symptoms. As a result, further waves of outbreaks have occurred because of local spread.
We still cannot know how many outbreaks there will be. However, leading epidemiologists are working on predictions which I will, of course, share with the House. We expect the rising trend to continue and new cases to occur for a considerable time. As I have said before, this is a devastating disease for farming and for the rural communities affected by it. I have on a number of occasions expressed my sympathy to all those suffering at a time of uncertainty and distress. I do so again today, and I know that that is an expression that unites the whole House.

Mr. William Cash: The Minister will know that two of my constituents spoke on the radio today on the timing of the notification of the outbreak. One of the people, Mr. Mike Littlehales, said that he had been called up by a lady in MAFF who wished know how it could update its records in case of a further outbreak of foot and mouth. Mrs. Fran Talbot had a similar point to make.
If we do not know exactly when the outbreak began—it having started and first been notified in Essex, but having apparently originated in Northumberland—and if it turns out that there was notification at an earlier stage, that


would be very serious. Will the Minister be good enough to ensure that we have full published transcripts and details of the operational plans, so that the suspicion that the outbreak started at an earlier stage will now be made clear?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech.

Mr. Brown: If I misled the House in the way in which the BBC misled the country this morning, I would have to come here and resign. I shall make that point to Mr. John Humphrys when I next see him.
The first case of foot and mouth disease in this country of which I was aware was that in the Essex abattoir, and the case on the farm adjacent to it. I was notified on the Tuesday night during our week's recess that there was a suspected case. I understand that my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Hayman had also been notified. The following morning—the Wednesday morning—that case was confirmed to me. On the Thursday night of that same week, I was told that there was a suspected case in Northumberland, at Heddon-on-the-Wall. That case was confirmed on that Friday. I telephoned the Prime Minister, who was in the United States of America, and later on that Friday we imposed complete and absolute movement restrictions by declaring the whole of Great Britain a controlled area by 5 o'clock that same day. That is the sequence of events. Officials in my Department, and Ministers, were not aware that the infectivity was present in the country for an earlier time period for the simple reason that it was not.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: Perhaps it will be easier, Mr. Speaker, if I deal with this urban legend at the appropriate point in my speech, because urban legend it is.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: There are times, Mr. Speaker, when I think that I am talking to myself. What I said was: perhaps it would be easier if I dealt with this in the appropriate passage of my speech. I will then take interventions on the point, if anybody wishes to perpetuate the myth, or, indeed, raise another one. Perhaps the Martians have visited us, or something like that. But for the minute, I will make some progress because I want to deal with the perfectly proper points that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. Member for South Suffolk. I would like to consider the way in which the Government are dealing with the disease, and I will take interventions that arise from what I say. However, I ask the House to let me say it first.
From the outset, we rapidly put in place firm disease control measures.

Mr. McLoughlin: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has said that he wants some time before he gives way.

Mr. Brown: That action, and every action since then, has been taken on professional advice, and, in particular, on the advice of the chief veterinary officer, Mr. Jim Scudamore.
I want to deal with that famous urban legend—the question of MAFF having known about the outbreak in January on the basis of inquiries made by MAFF staff about supplies of railway sleepers. I understand that there is a similar legend about disinfectant supplies from another supplier company, and the answer is the same. The rumours that we knew in January are completely untrue. The Government first learned about a possible outbreak on 20 February. The first case was confirmed on 21 February.
I understand that, in January, my Department's animal health office in Staffordshire carried out a regular foot and mouth disease contingency planning exercise. This is conducted every year; there is nothing unusual about it. Staff were contacting vets, slaughtermen, disinfectant suppliers and suppliers of railway sleepers for incineration. It is sheer coincidence that the exercise took place a month before a genuine outbreak, but coincidence it is. If the question is why we rang that particular supplier after other suppliers had been rung—I understand that that is a caveat to this urban legend—the answer is that the Department was checking prices.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way because I want to talk to him about that exact point. I quote not a Martian, but a MAFF spokesman who said today:
From time to time we do emergency planning exercises. We are not aware if this was one of those cases.
Can the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is deeply worrying when MAFF officials say that there may be a planning exercise going on, but they are not sure? The very person they approached about railway sleepers says that the last time he was approached was 1967. That raises suspicions and mere abuse about Martians does not answer them.

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the sentence I uttered before he intervened, he would understand that that particular supplier was contacted because the local office was checking prices. In other words, it was getting the competitive rate. That is the answer and that is all there is to it. The exercise—the local area offices' update—is conducted annually region by region. There is nothing unusual in it. We check the availability of a range of items that we might need to procure from time to time. The exercise is not an invention of the Labour Government—exactly the same procedure was carried out under the previous Government, and perfectly properly.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I want to make a procedural point. A number of people in business, whether they be farmers or those associated with tourism, or the trout farmer in my constituency who cannot move any of his fish, are affected by the crisis. Members of Parliament are receiving an increasing number of telephone calls from concerned constituents, so it might be useful if the Minister elaborated on policy. Are such people able to claim compensation? Can they get some restrictions lifted? I have been telephoning his Department, the staff of which have been diligent and courteous, but can Members have a dedicated helpline so they can get action taken on requests that they make?

Mr. Brown: I have written to all Members setting out the helplines and contact lines and a regular daily update


is provided for Members of Parliament, which I place in the Library of the House, the Government Whips Office, the Opposition Whips Office and the Whips Offices of the other parties. That front-line information is available.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank the Minister for giving way. He has just given the House the serious news that his Department's epidemiologists predict many more cases and that the crisis will go on for a considerable time. In those circumstances, it would be grossly irresponsible of the Government not to put in hand measures to bring in the Army to deal with the crisis. What measures are in hand to do that?

Mr. McLoughlin: rose—

Mr. Brown: I am torn between explaining what we are about to do, which includes dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton—Brown), and taking interventions. I shall take the interventions. Then, if the House will allow me, I shall make progress.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My point follows on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said. The Minister says that he expects a number of outbreaks to occur for some time. Obviously there is concern in tie countryside—not just in agriculture, but in the tourism industry, which has added significance—so, although I realise that it is difficult, can he give any indication of the time scale that he has in mind?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps I did not make clear enough what I intend to do. Once I have the result of the epidemiologists' work, I intend to put it in the public domain. It is currently being "peer-group assessed", but I understand that it will reach me very soon—within days rather than weeks. When I have seen it, I will share it with everyone else here, and we can make our own assessments. As those who are familiar with such exercises will know, it will not give a detailed timetable, but it will include a range of possible times, so it will give us all something to work towards.
I intend to share the information with the House rather than keeping it to myself, just as I have done in the case of every other piece of information that has come to me.

Mr. Tom King: Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton—Brown) nor my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) quoted the Minister correctly. Did I not hear him say that he expected the rising trend to continue for a considerable time? Is that really the case?

Mr. Brown: I am afraid that it is. May I explain why in summary now, and deal with the issue in more detail later?
It is clear now, as it would not have been clear a fortnight ago, that in Devon, Cumbria and southern Scotland, and potentially in the midlands and on the Welsh-English border, there are concentrations of infectivity in such amounts that we are no longer dealing with the emergence of the original spread of the disease in animals. We are now dealing with animal-to-animal infection. There is sheep-to-sheep infection in Cumbria,

and I regret to say that we are certain that there is cattle-to-cattle spread there as well. Those circumstances underpin the need for more rigorous action in pursuit of the existing policy in Cumbria and southern Scotland.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Brown: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman after I have explained the proposals for the area that he represents. I think that that would be fairer.
Before I finish the business about urban legends, there is one about the Antec disinfectant company. It is effectively the same as the railway sleeper issue. Antec's chief executive officer has claimed on the radio that MAFF must have known about the presence of foot and mouth disease, because we contacted the company in November to discuss supplies. The procurements and contracts division has confirmed that it did speak to the company in November, but that was part of a normal contractual discussion, and we have a normal supply-chain relationship with the company. I must say that I am very tempted to look into that! Anyway, all this is urban legend.

Mr. Luff: rose—

Mr. Brown: I know that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is affected, and I have something to say about it. If he will let me deal with that first, he can intervene later. I know that more needs to be done in his area, and I want to say what that "more" is.

Mr. Luff: rose—

Mr. Brown: Patience!
Since 23 February, all animal movements have been at a standstill. Since 2 March, tightly controlled arrangements have operated for animals outside the infected areas to be transported directly to slaughter for human consumption. I understand from the Meat and Livestock Commission—I know that Members will be interested by this—that the pig sector is back to 85 per cent. of normal production, and that the figures for beef and lamb are 60 per cent. and 38 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: As the Minister knows, I have written to him about that. My constituency contains a major abattoir, to which livestock is brought from as far away as Wales, travelling through highly infected areas of Devon. That is causing enormous concern in the greater part of Cornwall that currently contains no infection. Farmers are saying that there is surely some risk in bringing cattle such a long way through highly infected areas, and I think they would appreciate some response from the Minister.

Mr. Brown: The risks involved in the licensed movements are extremely low, although I understand the nervousness and concern. The question that is usually raised concerns the spread of the virus by air—the plume from the animals. I am giving a presentation in the Department on Friday to discuss questions relating to the disease and how it is spread, and also to vaccination. However, as I told the Select Committee on Agriculture


this morning—the chief vet has confirmed this—the dangers of a spread of the virus by a plume are essentially associated with pigs. The risk of animals in transit such as cattle and sheep spreading the virus by that means is vanishingly small. That is the veterinary advice to me.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Brown: I give way. I do not want to be discourteous to the House, but, at the same time, I want to make some progress.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister is being helpful. He is answering all the interventions with great courtesy and as clearly as he can. I am grateful that he is putting information in the Library, but may we please have presentations such as the one to which he just referred; can there be presentations specifically for Members of Parliament? Many hon. Members' constituencies on both sides of the House are now affected. It would be helpful if we had some clear presentations from his officials and others on the points that he has touched on.

Mr. Brown: Yes. I want to meet the hon. Gentleman's request in two ways. If there are hon. Members here on Friday—I know it is not a convenient time for hon. Members—who would like to come to the presentation at 10 o'clock at the Department, which has been arranged primarily for journalists and broadcasters, they may do so. I extend an invitation to any hon. Member who would like to come to that presentation to ring my private office. I will arrange for a seat to be reserved for them. They can see the same presentation is being given to the journalists.
I shall also arrange to have the entire presentation repeated midweek at a time that is convenient for hon. Members, so that there will be a second chance to see it. More than that, at the second presentation, I will arrange for the epidemiology to be presented by someone who is qualified to do so, so that hon. Members can have an insight into that, too.

Mr. Luff: Will the Minister give way? [Interruption.]

Mr. Brown: I give way.

Mr. Luff: I am sorry that Labour Members do not want the House to be properly informed, but I wish to raise with the Minister the question of the adequacy of information. The website is not up to date. The maps are not detailed enough to establish where outbreaks are occurring. When I rang a ministerial office today about the MPs hotline, the staff thought that there was some sort of hotline and said that they would come back to me with a number, but they have not done so yet.
The information that the Minister says is in the Whips Office is not there; I have just been to ask for it. We have not had that information, but it would help enormously if more information could be provided more systematically.

Mr. Brown: The daily update that is intended for Members of Parliament is in the House Library. I am sorry if it has not got through the usual channels. It was

supposed to, but the usual channels do not always work as well as they should, and I can say that from personal experience. I had guessed that things had improved since my day, but perhaps they have not. My intention is that the information be available for all Members of Parliament, which is why I put it in the Library. It is supposed to be more regularly available.
I should like to deal with the point that was properly raised about animals that are trapped by the movement restrictions. It is a serious problem. The whole country is under movement controls at the minute. I recognise that we have created considerable animal welfare difficulties for farmers, particularly in respect of lambing, calving and farrowing. On 9 March. we introduced arrangements for limited local movements of animals. As of yesterday, we had issued 6,400 licences under those arrangements in England. In addition, this week, we are bringing in arrangements to allow animals to be moved on longer journeys, subject to strict controls on the cleansing and disinfection of vehicles. I know that that sounds arduous, but it is vital as a disease control measure.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend may have been planning to address this point anyway, but I would be grateful if he addressed reports that Devon trading standards office has received reports of more than 200 illegal animal movements in the past few weeks. Is there any substance in those reports? If so, is that not extremely worrying ?

Mr. Brown: I cannot comment on the volume. There have been reports of illegal movements of animals and where people are caught, they will be prosecuted. I beg people not to do it. There is no easier way of keeping the disease outbreak going than illegally moving the animals without licence. We all have common cause in this.
If the animal welfare problems cannot be addressed on the spot or by licensed movements, animals can be entered into a new voluntary welfare disposal scheme. Payments will be made. It is, the intractable nature of the sheep sector that is causing the delay.

Mr. John Burnett: I questioned the Minister about this matter last Thursday. This afternoon, he has given an explanation of the delay, but he assured me last week that a voluntary animal welfare disposal scheme would be introduced within a matter of days. I cannot stress enough to the Minister how important that is; it is dreadfully important. We hope such a scheme will be Introduced within 24 hours. Will he assure the House that the level of compensation will be reasonable, at market value and will reflect the many weeks in which cash has been paid out to feed animals well beyond the date at which they otherwise would have to be fed?

Mr. Brown: If  paid the market value now, I would be paying less than what I am trying to pay the farmers. Unlike the pork and beef sectors, part of the sheep sector has collapsed. There are a range of reasons for that which I am happy to discuss, but it is probably better for me to set out how I am trying to solve the problem. I am trying to solve it by getting a price for the welfare scheme that is—of necessity, to some extent—artificial. I want to set it at such a rate so that it is the best possible compensation I can get to the farmers in these appallingly difficult


circumstances without destroying that 38 per cent. of the market that is still moving. There is nothing I can do that, in the long term, would be a substitute for getting the market back to working normally.
If that sounds insufficient, let me say also that I am looking carefully at what can be done in the short term to help sheep farmers; they are not the only people who have been hit, but they have been hit the hardest. In the medium term, we are looking at what we can do to help the industry to get back on its feet. In the long term, we are looking at what sort of industry we want in this country; in other words, how we get the industry closer to the marketplace, how we make it more sustainable and how we make sure that the support payments impact on the farmer's income, rather than on the number of sheep.
To do that, I am looking hard at proposals for genotyping the national flock to make it resistant to scrapie and BSE. I am looking closely at the work of the hill farm taskforce to see how we deal with the medium-term questions involved in the hill farm allowance and what better use can be made of rural development regulation to underpin hill farmers' incomes. I have opened discussions, in general terms, with Franz Fischler and the Commission to examine the issues around the sheep premium review, which is due now in any event.
I am looking at whether the Government might want to do other things specifically to help those people caught by this terrible outbreak of the disease. Among those are whether we should offer extra help to those who want to take their agrimonetary payment, their premium payments—which we have managed to get protected by the Commission—and perhaps something else, as part, potentially, of something like an early retirement package for those who, frankly, have had enough and wish to retire. We will look at what we can do to help those who wish to be on-goers in the industry and at whether a restructuring of the whole support package might be the right way forward.
I will not be imposing anything from above. This will all require careful thought and discussion, not least with farmers' leaders and with individual farmers on the ground. These issues are under active consideration in Government. We are discussing what can be done now, what can be done in the medium term and, above all, what is the long-term prospect for the industry and how we best structure the support package. I intend to share those ideas with others and not impose them from the Government; I would like to get a consensus on them. We all realise that some things have to be done in the sheep sector. We would want those to be done in any case, even without this disease outbreak.

Miss Kirkbride: I thank the Minister for the way in which he is treating the House on this matter. He will have heard my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) about the sheep farmer who has 2,500 sheep in Staffordshire that he is unable to move. What can I tell the farmer about the measures that the Minister has mentioned concerning applying, on animal welfare grounds, for the sheep to be culled, with some compensation? Whom does he apply to? What time scale

is the Minister looking at? Can that farmer apply now? Under what time scale can the Minister possibly offer a compensation price?

Mr. Brown: I am trying to get the scheme open very quickly, and by that I mean in a matter of days. I am trying to get the price to a level that is as decent as possible, but it will not please people who refer back to what the market price was before the outbreak. I would advise the hon. Lady's constituent, if the animals are not yet infected, to look first at whether it is possible under the new licensing arrangements to move them from clean area to clean area. The second option or route would be to try and manage the problem on the site, or on a neighbouring site. However, from her description, the fact that the forage has gone means that that route is probably not possible.
The third route is intended to be the route of last resort. The Government are not offering a convenient, state-sponsored market. I must state that as firmly I can, because I know what people would really like in these circumstances, and I cannot provide it.

Mr. Townend: The drop in the number of animals going to abattoirs would lead one to expect a rise in prices, but that has not happened. Is that due to a big increase in imports? Secondly, have the Government made progress in finding the source of the outbreak? I understand that the strain of the disease indicates that it was brought in from abroad. Is not it about time that we banned imports from countries that have had any incidence of foot and mouth in the past for year or so—especially South Africa, which might be the source of the disease?

Mr. Brown: The South African bit is another red herring. In fact, we ban meat and other products that carry infectivity from all the regions around the world that have foot and mouth disease. However, it is no good for the hon. Gentleman on the one hand to call for bans on countries rather than regions, then for other hon. Members to say that they hope that I will be able regionalise the problem in the United Kingdom later. We can approach the problem in one way, or the other. I have high hopes that we will be able to regionalise the problem, as the extermination measures begin to bite.

Charlotte Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the question of movement of animals over distances of more than 10 km? The MAFF website invites farmers to apply for licences, but I understand that the Ministry's Leeds office has not issued any licences to farmers who want to move animals. There is an important animal welfare problem, especially for ewes in lamb and cows in calf. Those animals are going to give birth imminently, and many farmers in my constituency will have to move animals distances of up to 15 miles. They want clarification about what they can do to speed up the process.

Mr. Brown: A welfare scheme is in place that should facilitate the movement of clean animals from uninfected areas that are subject to movement restrictions but nothing else. The scheme provides for a single journey to the holding—either the animals' home farm, or elsewhere if other arrangements have been made—where they are to


lamb. If that is not happening for the farmers in her constituency, I will pursue the matter for her. The Ministry's preferred route with regard to dealing with animals moving from areas that are subject to movement restrictions but in which there is no infectivity is that, on welfare grounds, the animals should be moved under licence. The journeys to the home farm will be strictly controlled and probably escorted, and completed in a single run. If my hon. Friend will draw the difficulties being experienced in her area to my attention, I will have the matter pursued by my private office, either later on today or tomorrow.

Mrs. Angela Browning: The Minister has explained the difficulties with the voluntary welfare scheme with regard to sheep, but may I urge him to consider opening the scheme for pigs tomorrow? I telephoned his private office last Wednesday about the case of Mr. Richard Webber. Last Wednesday, he had 400 pigs that could not lie down. That is a very serious welfare problem. The Minister had a pig welfare scheme in place last year, and I urge him to open a similar scheme tomorrow.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady is right, and makes a perfectly fair comment. I want to open the pig scheme as quickly as I can, to cover exactly those circumstances that she has described. The preferred route for disposal of pigs is to get the chain working normally. Much of it is working normally but, as we found out from the classical swine fever outbreak in East Anglia, problems emerge very quickly when the chain is not working properly. Such problems require decisive action, and the hon. Lady is right to press me on the point. I will get on with the matter.

Mr. Phil Hope: May I tell my right hon. Friend how much the whole House appreciates the manner in which he is handling this debate and all the issues that are being raised?
I wish to ask about travellers with regard to containment and contamination. Where a travelling group arrives at an infected area, is the advice to the police that they should be asked to stay there or should they be moved on, as many people want? My fear is that if travellers are moved on, they simply become another vector for transmission. I do not know whether MAFF has issued guidance and advice on that issue.

Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. The House seems to like me so much that it keeps calling me back here. I am not sure whether to take that as a compliment.
My hon. Friend invites me to give either one piece of unpopular advice or another piece of unpopular advice. Travellers, like everyone else, should stay away from farmed livestock. If they have been in contact with farmed livestock, they should take exactly the same precautionary measures that everyone else has to take before moving. My advice to everyone is to stay away from farmed livestock.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: I wi11 take a few more interventions but then I really would like to make some progress, because there are some things that I know right hon. and hon. Members want to hear—even if they pretend not to.

Mr. Livsey: I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way. As he will know, there are nearly 1 million sheep in Powys. In the 1967 outbreak, it was very common to put a calf in with the sheep because they show early warning signs of the disease. I gather from what was said in the Select Committee this morning that this is exceedingly difficult. Only 5 per cent. of sheep actually show signs of the disease. Will the Minister consider this practice and also the use of cull cows, which are of very low value?

Mr. Brown: That is a perfectly sensible livestock management practice, and I commend it. Cattle can act as markers for sheep flocks.

Mr. Duncan: Will the Minister contemplate, in extremis, allowing slaughter under the welfare disposal scheme first and sorting out the payment and compensation afterwards, if need be?

Mr. Brown: I understand the sensible thinking that underpins the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. However, this is a voluntary scheme and it is difficult to ask people to deliver animals to a voluntary scheme and then argue about the money afterwards. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on his time in business, does he think that he would have done the deal first and haggled about the payment afterwards? Frankly, I think not.

Mr. Chris Ruatle: I had a meeting with five farmers in my constituency on Monday. In Wales, in the Vale of Clwyd, we have many small farms, which send only two or three animals to slaughter at a time. Those farmers asked whether it would be possible to send their two or three animals to a central location if their vehicles were disinfected when they left the farm and got to the central location so that the animals could be collected by a large wagon and taken off to slaughter.

Mr. Brown: That is a perfectly fair point. At the beginning of the outbreak we were considering whether collection centres might be a viable route. I am advised that at the moment they are not, because of the risk and the need for intensive management of some centres. As the situation progresses, I hope that it will be possible to put such arrangements in place. I hold out the prospect of such an option in the future, but I cannot announce it now.
I should like to make some progress, because I know that the House will be interested in what I have to say next. As the disease has incubated and revealed itself, our understanding of the outbreak has increased and we have been able to refine the disease control strategy. On 15 March I set out our safety-first strategy of intensified efforts in the areas of the country where the disease has spread and, provided that other areas remain disease-free, modification of restrictions in those unaffected areas.
Outside the infected areas of the country, the rest of Great Britain remains a controlled area. Movements are allowed only under strict, licensed conditions. We are


aiming to protect those parts of the country so far free of the disease. The precise geographical definition is still subject to epidemiological advice. but, broadly speaking, it is Scotland north of the Forth-Clyde valley, much of eastern England, part of the south coast and south-west Wales. We shall not permit welfare movements into those currently disease-free areas.
In his statement to the House yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment reported on the work of the rural taskforce. I reinforce his message by urging the public to continue to stay away from farmed livestock and to take special precautions in infected areas. At the same time, however, I want to make it clear that a range of country activities can be safely undertaken, particularly in unaffected areas. That is the best way to help rural businesses, which depend on visitors and tourism.
In the areas in which we are intensifying our efforts, the greatest concentration of infection is in the adjoining counties of Cumbria and Dumfries and Galloway. Those two counties account for more than 40 per cent. of all confirmed cases, and substantially more of those confirmed recently.

Mr. Hogg: I sense that the Minister will soon come to the extended cull. If so, will he help the House on one point? In dealing with the killing of healthy animals, what steps will he take to safeguard the blood lines of specialist flocks? Several specialist groups of cattle, pigs and sheep could effectively be eliminated if a whole flock were to be destroyed under the extended cull scheme. What does the Minister have in mind?

Mr. Brown: A later passage of my speech will deal with that point, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is on to a perfectly proper point.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Brown: I should like to make a little progress before returning to specialist breeds at the relevant point in my speech.
The infection has mainly been concentrated in the sheep flock, although there is now cattle-to-cattle spread in Cumbria. The potential for rapid spread in that area makes it necessary to destroy sheep and pigs within 3 km of the infected farms, as I announced last Thursday. The chief veterinary officer, Jim Scudamure, visited Cumbria on Monday to speak to local farmers and their representatives, as well as veterinarians. He explained the reasons for the slaughter of sheep and pigs within the 3 km zones.
In carrying out the programme of destroying animals within those zones in Cumbria and south-west Scotland, we shall look sympathetically at the scope for protecting rare breeds, wherever possible. We are discussing how best to achieve that with representatives of farmers of rare breeds.

Mr. Tim Collins: The Minister's point is of great concern to my constituents and those of all right hon. and hon. Members who represent Cumbria. He said that he would seek to preserve specialist herds. If those herds are wiped out, there will be no

question of replacements being purchasable from off some other shelf. If they are gone, they are gone for good, and the farmers concerned will face no possibility of rebuilding their businesses and livelihoods.
The Minister said that he would seek "wherever possible" to protect those herds from the effects of the wider cull. Earlier today, he also said that the Dutch were considering a ring vaccination scheme around the area in which foot and mouth has broken out in the Netherlands. Vaccination is a highly complicated and sensitive issue, but if that is the only mechanism by which we may keep some rare herds in existence, will the Minister consider it?
May I extend to the Minister a repeat of the invitation that many people in Cumbria have offered him? I know that he is busy, but if he could come to the county, an awful lot of people would like to see him.

Mr. Brown: What the hon. Gentleman says is true. My earlier outline plan would have taken me to Cumbria this afternoon. I said previously that I would tell all the county's Members of Parliament when I would visit Cumbria so that we could meet on a bipartisan basis with, at least, farmers' leaders and representatives of the veterinary profession to discuss what is being done, and why and how. I know that there is much interest in all those points. I should also want to look to the future and discuss a recovery plan and the future shape of the industry once we have defeated the disease.
I have never ruled out vaccination. I am not an enthusiast, and I should take a lot of persuading before agreeing to it. The professional advice that I have had goes against it, for all the reasons that we have previously debated here. I have not ruled out vaccination in the context of rare breeds, although I am not certain that it would achieve the result that the hon. Gentleman anticipates.
We are taking specific interest in rare breeds and shall do whatever is necessary to protect them. However, if animals get the disease, they must be destroyed. There is nothing that I, or any Minister in my position, can do about that.
Let me make some further progress. I want to say something about the situation in Devon, which is also very serious. As I explained to the House last Thursday, our policy in Devon is to carry out intensive patrols—veterinary inspections—every 48 hours on all farms within a 3 km radius of an infected farm. That work is intensive and must be undertaken by people with veterinary knowledge. Its purpose is to ensure that cases of foot and mouth disease are identified as soon as possible and dealt with, by quarantine and slaughter.
Like all our actions, that measure is under constant review, but it is designed to try to prevent mass culling in the peculiar circumstances of Devon farms—where the farm structure is relatively small and the farms are close together. Everyone in the House will understand what that means with regard to the risk of spreading infectivity. I appeal to everyone to co-operate with the authorities in Devon over that intensive and focused disease-control strategy, designed to defeat the disease before it spreads further and necessitates more widespread culling.
As we have already discussed, and as the hon. Member for South Suffolk emphasised, there are serious logistical issues in Cumbria and in Devon in relation to slaughtering and disposing of infected animals. There is much interest


in that matter in the House. In essence, the House is saying to me, "Why can't it all be gotten on with quicker? Why can't the animals be killed and removed immediately? Don't you need to do all this faster?" I want to set out exactly what we are doing to try to increase the rate of all that and of the disposal of carcases. We are acutely aware of the need to reduce the time between confirmation and slaughter and the time between slaughter and disposal.
Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition made a number of suggestions for action to help speed up our response to the disease, and they are reflected in today's Opposition motion. They are all helpful suggestions and I shall address each in turn.
The first is to allow vets to slaughter on suspicion of foot and mouth disease. Following the early cases of the disease, the Government's policy has been that vets can authorise slaughter on the basis of their clinical judgment. For some time, more than 90 per cent. of all cases have been slaughtered without the need for laboratory tests. The reason is obvious: we now know that we have foot and mouth disease in this country, so it is not necessary to confirm each case. In almost all cases, the judgment of the individual veterinarian is enough.
The second proposal—also perfectly sensible—is that the Government make an appeal to vets from abroad to come and help in the fight against the disease. Probably our largest bottleneck in the control of this extended outbreak is veterinary resource—we need vets. In the first week of the outbreak, we made such an appeal, and 70 foreign vets are already in the country, seven are arriving today and up to 30 will arrive next week.
The third proposal is that the Government bring final-year veterinary students into the front line against the disease. We have already done so. More than 100 have been appointed to work alongside the state veterinary service, and we hope that a further 70 will join soon.
It was also suggested that we employ retired vets. We are recalling retired vets to the colours—making use of their skills and services. We are increasing still further the number of vets involved in fighting the disease. More than 1,000 vets have already been appointed to the SVS; that compares with the 220 who would normally be employed as fieldworkers. In Cumbria, we have increased the number of Government vets from 14—the number on 28 February—to 64 on 7 March and, as of Monday this week, the number is 101. The extra numbers are being drafted into Cumbria because it is necessary to do so.

Mr. Roger Gale: Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed the possibilities with the president of the British Veterinary Association? I was speaking to him at lunchtime and got the distinct impression that no such discussions had taken place and that the private sector could probably help a great deal if it was asked to do so.

Mr. Brown: The private sector has been asked to help. The communications take place between the chief vet and the president of the association, so the chief vet, not I myself, would conduct those discussions. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House earlier today, the rates of pay offered for the work have been increased, and I hope that the new rates will be attractive to some vets in the private sector.

Many of this country's approximately 22,000 vets are in private practice, especially in small animal practices that they have built up themselves over many years, and it is not easy for them to put their private work to one side and suddenly work temporarily for the Government and then return to private practice. I appeal to those vets who can help to do so. We have upped the rates of pay to try to make the work more attractive, and I hope that that helps.
The Leader of the Opposition's fourth suggestion was to make more use of burial to dispose of carcases. We already use burial, but, admittedly, in a small number of cases. We are in favour of using burial where appropriate, but I should tell the House about the constraints on doing so. There are geological factors, such as the risk of contaminating water sources and, especially in the Cumbrian hills—as those who know the area will readily accept—there is shallow top soil with granite underneath, which makes burial not such an attractive option. Herds and flocks are much larger compared with 1967, so much larger burial sites would be needed. We are working closely with the Environment Agency to identify and use suitable landfill sites for the burial of carcases.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it true that the divisional veterinary officer for Cumbria has sought for weeks to assure Ministers that everything was under control and that resources were available when, in fact, it now turns out that what he was saying was simply untrue and was misleading Ministers?

Mr. Brown: That is not a fair picture of events. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall spell out what we are doing to reinforce the normal state veterinary service presence in Cumbria, so that we have a veterinary and a non-veterinary team sufficient to tackle the growing task there.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Brown: I shall deal with the disposal routes before taking an intervention.
Burning and burial are not the only disposal routes; we are also using rendering plants. Four plants are already operating, and we intend to have six in use by the end of the week. We also plan to use dedicated slaughterhouses and rendering for at-risk animals that do not have the clinical symptoms of foot and mouth, but those abattoirs will, of course, have to be specifically dedicated to the task.

Ms Joan Walley: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for all that he is doing to deal with the situation, but can he assure the House that he is now able to make an order to ban the spreading of liquid condensate, which relates to rendering plants? I understand that the consultation period finished on 5 March, and that nothing now prevents him from making that order.

Mr. Brown: That is a slightly separate issue. My hon. Friend has long and tirelessly pressed Ministers on that matter. I am not certain about the condensate issue because I have been fully engaged in the disease control


operation. I think that an order is due soon, but if my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall write to her setting out the position.

Mr. James Paice: The Minister has described the problem of finding enough vets, and we appreciate the efforts that he is making, but earlier this afternoon the Prime Minister said that there was no shortage of slaughtermen.  assume that the Minister endorses that statement, so can he explain why the list of animals awaiting slaughter is increasing? By virtue of the fact that they are on that list, a vet has already seen them and diagnosed the disease. If there are sufficient slaughtermen, why cannot they go in almost straight behind the vet?

Mr Brown: That is a fair question; I intend to deal with it once I have finished with the points made by the Leader of the Opposition. This is at the heart of the debate: how can we provide a better service, get the affected animals killed quickly, proceed with the proactive culling of animals that are at risk, and remove the carcases expeditiously?

Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the rendering plant at Halton means that transport travelling south to north and from north Wales comes close to my constituency. Is he satisfied that the vehicles used are sealed properly, or is another urban myth going around given the stories in the local press suggesting that animals legs are sticking out of the trucks?

Mr. Brown: If anyone sees an arrangement that he believes to be unauthorised or wrong, he should note it and note the licence plate of the vehicle involved. I promise that I will have the matter checked. The whole disease control situation is now awash with urban legends. I understand how they arise, but they do not help. I am satisfied that the transport protocols at sufficiently robust to keep the risk of spreading the disease to an absolute minimum.
The real risks of spreading the disease are the movements of people and vehicles from sites of infectivity and the unauthorised movement of animals. Even if people think that no risks are involved because the animals look healthy, they may not be. If they are incubating the virus, moving them will cause it to spread. I urge people not to do that.

Sir Michael Spicer: Does the Minister accept that the facilities for rendering are quite inadequate? I know about the position in Worcestershire—the nearest rendering plant is in Exeter, which is three to four hours away. Two lorries are trying to deal with thousands of carcases, but it will take several weeks to clear the area. The Minister must give an absolute assurance that he will take a specific decision within 24 hours to deal with the problem by burial. Rendering is simply not sufficient to cope with the problems in Worcestershire.

Mr. Brown: I understand the hon Gentleman's point about disposal routes. A range of alternatives is available, and when burial can be used, it will he. However, I shall say a little more later in my speech about how we intend to manage the intensified outbreak in the area that the hon. Gentleman represents and the areas linked to it. I might have something new to say to him.
I wish to deal with the point that the Leader of the Opposition perfectly properly raised about bringing in soldiers to help with the slaughter of animals and the disposal of carcases. As of yesterday, Army logistic support teams have been deployed at MAFF's request in Cumbria and Devon. More than 70 members of the 1st Battalion, Prince of Wales Own Regiment have been deployed to Carlisle and up to 130 members of the Royal Military Police, contributing logistical expertise, will be available to deploy to Exeter. Their role is to enhance command and control and to provide supervision of the disposal process. They will get it better organised and that will free up veterinary time.
The soldiers will supplement MAFF's regional staff in the co-ordination of contractor teams already involved in disposing of carcases. That will speed up the disposal process and release vets to tackle the spread of the disease. We are keeping the position under review, and I must stress again that any Government resource that can help will be used.
I also wish to deal with the Leader of the Opposition's proposal for a business rate holiday for rural businesses. I am pleased, as I know that most Members are, that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment was able to announce a preliminary package of measures—I stress that it is a preliminary package—to help affected rural businesses, including three months relief from business rates.
We are taking further action to speed up the Government's response to the disease. Incidentally, I take no personal affront at the hon. Member for South Suffolk chiding me on these matters. Yes, we need to do better, and that is what we are setting out to do. We are doing all that we can to free up vets so that they can concentrate solely on veterinary matters; we are looking to take on more veterinary surgeons as temporary veterinary inspectors; and revised remuneration arrangements have now been finalised and are being announced later today.
We have put in place two senior officials as directors of operations—one in Cumbria and the other in Devon—and they are able officials drawn from the heart of the Ministry. I can also tell the House that the permanent secretary agreed this morning to appoint a director of operations for the west of England. We are creating the post with immediate effect and it will be located at the Worcester office. The role will be exactly the same as that carried out in Cumbria and in Exeter, and it will be at grade 5 level. We will keep under review the need to reproduce that arrangement elsewhere.
To contain the problem in areas other than Devon and Cumbria, we are acting on a recommendation of the chief vet and negotiating with the Ministry of Defence to secure Army support in Gloucester, Worcester and Stafford. With our colleagues in the devolved authority, we are urgently considering the need to do that in Dumfries and Lanarkshire. Follow-up action is being taken with the Ministry of Defence. That is the latest position.
Some hon. Members will know that I was in the Agriculture Committee all morning, so I am not as fully briefed as usual. However, I knew that the House would want to know that the new logistical structures are being put in place where the permanent secretary believes that to be necessary. I wholeheartedly support what he is doing. The reason for the new arrangements is to ensure that the slaughtermen, of whom we believe we have


enough, get to the task as soon as it is required to be carried out. The contractors can come in behind them and either remove the carcases or bury or burn them on site.
We have taken measures to ensure that the valuation of animals before they are slaughtered does not cause unnecessary delay. Again, later today I plan to introduce arrangements to make it possible for animals that are subject to compulsory slaughter to be valued according to a standard valuation tariff. As it is a generous tariff, people will be tempted to accept it rather than go to valuation and arbitration. That will speed up the system and, frankly, put more cash in hard-hit sheep farmers' pockets. That is my intention.

Mr. Paterson: On burial, who decides where flocks will be disposed of? As I told the right hon. Gentleman in the Select Committee this morning, the Environment Agency says that burial is the least preferred option, which is in direct contravention of the recommendations of the 1969 report. Someone in the agency is making a decision on a constituency case of mine today. Will the Minister ensure that hon. Members are able to telephone a senior official of the agency to ensure that burial takes place, because that is the preferred option in my area?

Mr. Brown: Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis on the advice of local officials. Our officials make the decision and we consult the Environment Agency. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the anomaly. Of course burial is an attractive option for people who wish to dispose of carcases for disease control purposes. However, for those whose responsibility it is to protect the environment—including the water table—it is less attractive. We are looking at what can be done. Essentially, our approach is pragmatic, but we cannot poison the water table, and I am sure that no one is asking us to. The decision is made locally by the officials in charge. In the areas that are subject to the new control structures, that is by the appointed Ministry official. We consult the Environment Agency but, ultimately, it is for the Ministry to make the decision on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being extremely generous.
Mr. Sean Jackman, a self-employed farming contractor in Winslow in my constituency, has not been able to work for three weeks. On the assumption—at which I am not cavilling—that the Government will continue to resist calls for compensation for lost earnings, and further to what the Prime Minister said at Question Time about building on the loan guarantee scheme, will the Minister explain the time scale for that extension?

Mr. Brown: I have been candid with the House and said that I cannot promise that we will consider all contingent losses. No Minister could. It is a difficult issue. If the hon. Gentleman compiles a list of the contingent losses that he thinks the Government could accept, he will face the same problem. I am not trying to make a party political point. The problem is intractable. I cannot make a statement today in response to the issue that he is pressing

because it is not necessarily within my Ministry's gift. However, the Government are considering what more can be done and an announcement will be made shortly.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman quickly covered areas such as mine that have no cases of foot and mouth. Will he consider sending out good information—perhaps in the form of advertising—to tell people where they can go in rural areas, such as the seaside? The Government have £30 million of television advertising booked for an election that I suspect the Prime Minister will want to delay. Perhaps those slots could be used for that information campaign.

Mr. Brown: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who represents the Ministry on the taskforce, tells me that the matter is under examination, and we hope to be able to put something into the public domain shortly. As well as being authoritative, that information has to be crisp and accurate. That is being considered, and the work that the hon. Gentleman properly asks for is under way.
I turn now to the compensatory arrangements. Our overriding priority is to bear down on the disease and eliminate it as quickly as possible. That is not a matter that divides the House. We are also doing a lot to help farmers financially. We have agreed to pay £156 million in extra agrimonetary compensation. To the average beef farmer that is worth £450 on beef special premium and £650 on suckler cow premium. To the average dairy farmer it is worth £2,300 and to the average sheep farmer it is worth £650. We have made special arrangements to make the payments over March, April and May.
We are fully compensating for animals that have to be slaughtered because of infection or exposure to infection, and that includes the value of common agricultural policy subsidies that would have been claimed on the animal. So far, committed compensation for compulsory slaughter stands at £80 million, and it will rise further in the weeks ahead.
We have taken steps to safeguard subsidy payments to farmers whose claims might otherwise have been put at risk by animal movement restrictions. Assistance is being given to the Meat Hygiene Service so that abattoirs, including small ones, do not bear all the increased costs that arise from the exceptional measures being imposed at present. We are working to do more. I recognise, for instance, the concern of beef producers whose animals are subject to movement restrictions that push them over the 30-month age limit The Opposition have been pressing me on that point, and I am considering what I can do. As hon. Members would expect, I know the arguments in favour of pump-priming the pig industry development scheme levy, and I am considering whether that will be possible.
I also have to look to the longer term. I want to consider the effect on disease control of movement of sheep across large distances and through livestock markets. I want to examine the risks to animal health of illegal imports of meat products. I want to look at the role that swill feeding might have played in the disease outbreak. I want to look in particular at the sheep sector, as I explained briefly to the House earlier, and consider how the rebuilding of the flock should be handled. We are working on improving


traceability in the sheep sector and at how to progress existing plans for scrapie eradication. I intend to pay special attention to how the various options under the rural development plan can be deployed to help.
Some of the problems of the livestock sector are deep seated. Many result from a long history of production-based subsidies under the common agricultural policy. We need to take the long view and work with industry to create a sustainable future for the livestock farmers in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. The more that we can do that in a bipartisan spirit, the better. There is not much disagreement between us about the need to reshape the common agricultural policy or to provide enduring, sustainable support measures for livestock farmers, so I hope that we can take a relatively politics-neutral approach to the matter.

Mr. Paul Keetch: The Minister mentioned the cause of the outbreak and he spoke earlier about urban myths. Is he aware of the rumour circulating in certain elements of the press that animal rights activists are claiming that they stole a phial of foot and mouth disease from a MAFF centre at Pirbright and that they were the initiators of the outbreak? Will he state, once and for all, that that is not the case, and put that myth to bed?

Mr. Brown: We should all take a deep breath. My strongest suspicion is that there will be a far more prosaic explanation. That does not mean that we should not concentrate on finding out why our country has had two viral disease outbreaks in animals in a short time. It is right to focus on what has made us more vulnerable. But I have to say that animal rights activists are at the far end of a scale of suspects. The Ministry are working on the matter, and I am afraid that I must tell the House that the outcome is likely to be far more prosaic. The remedy is likely to be pretty prosaic as well, which is something that we can discuss together. Again, I would wish to consult the House before putting any further measures in place. However, if further measures are required, they will be introduced.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has been tremendously generous in doing so in this debate. Does he accept that an outbreak of foot and mouth is an extreme psychological blow to the farmer concerned? Compensation can never bring back the animals, but even if it is an amount on account, will the right hon. Gentleman personally ensure that it is paid as quickly as possible with minimum bureaucracy?

Mr. Brown: I hope to do better than that. I am looking at further support that can be provided immediately and at what can be done to provide a medium and long-term future for the livestock sector. In particular, I am looking at the relationship between measures necessary for recovery immediately after the disease and those which, for a range of reasons with which the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members are familiar, are necessary in the longer term. If we can pull all those strands together, perhaps some good may come out of a great evil. If that can be achieved, preferably with some consensus between us, it will be a good thing.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you be kind enough to tell

the House whether this is a question and answer session or whether we are taking part in a debate in which Members of Parliament are being asked to speak only for 12 minutes? A number of people have attempted to get in two or three times.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced member of the House, that whether hon. Members seek to intervene on the Minister is entirely a matter for them? Whether the Minister gives way is entirely a matter for him.

Mr. Brown: I am trying to be courteous to the House. If I sense that the mood is that I should now make progress with my speech, no one would be happier than me, except possibly the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery).
I should like to deal with the question of vaccination of animals. I have arranged for a presentation for journalists who are covering the issue on 10 o'clock on Friday. Again, I extend an invitation to hon. Members to come to that presentation in my Ministry; they are all welcome. However, I will repeat the presentation and mount another on the epidemiology next week or later, depending on when the epidemiology is available for presentation. I believe that many hon. Members have an interest in that.
Of course vaccination remains an option, but the current veterinary advice to me is that that is not the way that we should proceed at the moment. I must not rule it out, but I do not intend to use it in the near future. My position has the full support of the Agriculture Council, to which I gave a report in Brussels on Monday. The other member states are in agreement with our disease control measures. Commissioner Byrne is planning to write to all European Union Agriculture Ministers, setting out the Commission's approach to vaccination. When I receive his letter, I shall put it in the Library so that all Members can see what the Commission is telling member states.
I have been keeping everyone informed, not just the Council of Ministers. In addition to my statements to the House and my appearance before the Select Committee on Agriculture this morning, all Members of Parliament have been written to with advice on relevant sources of information, including the helpline and website. A daily update on the disease situation is being placed in the Libraries of the House and a mechanism has been put in place to ensure that Members are informed directly as soon as a case is confirmed in their constituencies.
The disease is a tragedy for all those affected, whether directly or indirectly. I am enormously grateful for the work of the state veterinary service and local authorities, and for the support of the farming organisations, many other organisations and the general public. I appeal to everyone to continue to work together. I am grateful for the consensual bipartisan approach that the House has taken so far. Working together, we can succeed in bearing down on the disease, which should not divide us. In so doing, we can achieve the Government's objective of regaining our disease-free status and, once we have done so, keeping it.

Mr. David Heath: I applaud the Minister of Agriculture for the rational way in which he has again addressed the House.
During the unfolding tragedy of foot and mouth disease, which has had incalculable effects on the agriculture industry and so many other rural businesses, we must bear in mind that dissention, whether it occurs on political grounds, within the farming industry or among those trying to deal with the outbreak, is the enemy of effective progress. We must not fall into that trap. Equally, however, it is right for all hon. Members to express our constituents' concerns. We often speak in the House about fear of crime being as bad as crime itself. In this instance, fear of the disease is almost as bad as the disease itself, because of its effects on members of the rural community. They feel that the sword of Damocles is hanging over their heads and are not sure whether, the next day or week, their business will be for ever ruined by the disease.
The Government should have four clear objectives in dealing with the crisis. First, the obvious primary objective is containment and eradication of the disease. I hope that nothing is done in any sphere of central or local government to jeopardise that objective. Secondly, we must deal with the welfare not only of livestock, but of people who are involved in rural industries, which is equally important and concerns all of us. Thirdly, we must in the short term establish the viability of as many businesses as possible, whether or not they are farm businesses. Effective short-term measures are needed to improve cash flow and to provide security. Finally, we must work on reconstruction, about which the Minister made some significant points. I do not believe that this is the right time to speak in detail about the reconstructive measures that are needed within the agriculture industry, but we must realise that that is our next port of call.
May I express yet again my support for some of the difficult decisions that the Minister has made during the past few weeks? I should like also to express gratitude and recognition—I hope that I do so on behalf of all hon. Members—in respect of the extraordinary efforts that are being made by so many MAFF officials and veterinary surgeons, as well as by people in the farming community and elsewhere who are trying to deal with the situation.

Mr. Burnett: While the Minister of Agriculture is in the House, I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware of how marvellous a job is being done by MAFF's vets and other employees on the ground. I heard this morning from a constituent whose animals have been slaughtered and to whom the vet and MAFF officials were very helpful. The vet, a Mr. Bud Boyd, came from Texas. He was not only incredibly sympathetic, but was immensely supportive of the farming family, who were enormously grateful to him.

Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend represents one of the foci of infection and knows at first hand how difficult the matter is, so his testimony is valuable.
Having expressed our support for what local people and the ministerial team are doing, we must now turn to the deficiencies in the arrangements. Although we support the objectives and, to a large extent, the strategy, we are aware that there have been holes in the implementation.

Indeed, the Minister was good enough to recognise the existence of such holes. It is right for us to try to address some of those problems so that they can be improved in the short term and to enable us to learn in the longer term.
First, let me deal with the disease itself. We have had some discussion about contingency planning and the possibility of local arrangements for annual contingency plans or exercises.
A substantial amount of evidence suggests that the contingency planning was not equal to the task. That is a criticism not of those who are trying to implement the plans, but of long-term emergency planning arrangements between MAFF, other Departments and non-governmental departments. Ample evidence shows that those arrangements were inadequate or not in place.

Mr. Nick Brown: That is not unfair criticism. I had hoped to have new directors in place in Government regional offices to improve co-ordination between the Ministry and other departments in the regions. Without the outbreak of the disease, we could have moved seamlessly to establish the arrangements. We had recognised the problem. and we are acting to put it right.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful for that intervention, and for the Minister's recognition that my criticism was not unfair; I never make unfair criticisms. I am trying to make constructive criticisms to improve matters for the future.
Elements of the basic planning give slight cause for concern, for example, the difficulty of sourcing disinfectant in the first week of the outbreak, and the sudden realisation of the existence of a wider range of appropriate disinfectant products than the original list contained. The annual updating of contingency plans might have avoided the problem. There was a failure to use community Pharmacies as a potential source of disinfectant. Pharmacological authorities brought to the Government's attention the fact that, when the agricultural suppliers had run out of advice and materials, other sources existed in many rural areas.
Hauliers reported to me that, in the first week of the outbreak, they drove to and from the continent and there were no disinfectant wheel baths at Folkestone or Dover. We therefore had the potential to export the disease to continental Europe.
For a long time, local authorities were unclear about their powers to close rights of way, bridleways and open areas. There is a further anxiety, which I would put to the Minister for the Environment if he were present. During consideration of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, I tabled amendments that would have allowed closure to deal with zoonoses. The Government rejected them and substituted an amendment that covered only human health. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that provision before the next epidemic so that we do not suddenly find that we have no means of closing areas that are open under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

Mr. David Drew: I make no apology for heaping praise on local government officers again. Trading standards officers as well as those in charge of rights of way have borne much of the pressure. If my county is typical, those officers have met almost daily to


make decisions and to work with MAFF officials, vets, valuers and others in the private sector. That shows how emergency planning can work, despite some difficulties.

Mr. Heath: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, I hope that he agrees that there are great differences between local authorities in the extent of emergency planning and the environmental health advice that they are offered. Relatively few county councils have a scientific department, which could provide the sort of advice that elected representatives need to deal with such a crisis.
We are trying to deal with a veterinary crisis without many of the Government vets who should be in place. That is a criticism not of the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister, but of decisions that were taken earlier to halve the number of vets in the Government service. That has greatly weakened our ability to respond to this crisis.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, at the beginning of this outbreak, we had half the vets that we had at the time of the 1967 outbreak? That reflects what has been happening to the Government's veterinary service. We need to consider that matter—after we have got rid of the disease, obviously—in terms of contingency planning for the future and of co-ordinating these issues at a European level. We now have partners in Europe that we did not have in 1967.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is obviously right. That was the point that I was making We are less able to deal with a crisis of this kind because of some very foolish decisions that were taken some years ago to reduce our effective barriers to epidemic. That has been exacerbated by the closure of abattoirs, especially small abattoirs, and by the fact that we now move animals over much greater distances on a more regular basis.
On the action being taken, I suspect that the Minister's tactics for dealing with the epidemic are absolutely right. They certainly accord with the veterinary advice that he has received. I shall not enter into the discussion about inoculation as a means of fighting the disease, although I would be interested to know what contrary advice the Dutch Government received that brought them to a different decision. In my constituency, a gentleman is electioneering on the basis that he would introduce immediate inoculation and vaccination as a means of dealing with the problem. I think that he is entirely wrong-headed in that view and that, if he were to put it to farmers, they would show him the error of his ways.
We have already touched on the problem of the time lag between diagnosis and slaughter. The Minister said that he had been dealing with that. I can only say to him that it is not before time. That was a matter of great concern to many farmers who recognised that their flocks or herds were potentially diseased, but who had to wait for the diagnosis to be confirmed before anything could be done about it, knowing that all the time their animals were breathing out a plume of virus that could infect other animals on their farm or a neighbouring one.
Local management has been a major issue. I do not say that to criticise the regional veterinary officers. I am simply saying that they were overloaded with the logistical demands that were placed on them to deal with the veterinary side of their work and with everything else

that they were being asked to do. It should have been obvious from the time when it became clear that we had two foci of infection—or three, if we include the Welsh borders, the Marches—that there needed to be a single person in charge. That is a matter of management, and a matter for the civil service, but I commend the decision that has now been made to put such a person in place. That is exactly the right decision.
On disposal, I believed from day one that burial was a better option, particularly for the relatively small number of carcases that we were dealing with in the early stage of the epidemic. I am disappointed that that option was rejected so early, that the Minister is still, apparently, fighting battles with other Departments about the ways of dealing with carcases, and that that method has not been made available.
On the use of the Army, I have received messages from, and had direct contact with, people involved with the Army who cannot understand why the relevant units are not being used. Let us remember that four Royal Engineers units and five Territorial Army regiments are stationed in the UK. They have 140 devices known as combat engineer tractors, which are not tractors at all, but are similar to the JCBs that one finds in civilian life, except that they have tracks on them. Those devices have not been brought into use, and neither has the Royal Logistic Corps. I find it difficult to understand why it is considered preferable for support to be provided by a few military policemen, however eminently qualified they may be, rather than by Royal Engineers with diggers, who could do the job.

Mr. Keetch: Does my hon. Friend agree that bringing in the Army would further emphasise that this is truly a serious national crisis?

Mr. Heath: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The key point is that, in a crisis that is overwhelming rural areas to such an extent, every single part of Government should have been mobilised from day one. There is sufficient evidence that that was not the case and that MAFF tried to fight a lone battle without the support of other Departments. Indeed, some decisions seem inexplicable.
The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service was effectively laid off from day one because it could not go on to farms. An agriculture advisory service that cannot get on to farms is no good and it had to sit around at home, waiting. Although it was put at the Minister's disposal, no staff were deployed to assist the Ministry in dealing with the epidemic until two or three weeks later. That is a scandalous waste of a human resources.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that a consequence of that waste is concern among the farming community that it has not heard enough about the rationale for the culls? Does he also agree that the Government could and should, as a matter of urgency and to ensure that the partnership between farmers and the Ministry continues, outline a clear justification for these dramatic measures? I am sure that they have to be taken, but their logic has not always been clear to people who have to suffer the consequences.

Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is right. He is referring to the clarity of the information provided and I shall come to that.
On resources, clearly there have not been enough vets in the field. Part of the problem has been the rate of pay, which the Minister has increased from £160 to £250. That is welcome, and I hope that the increase goes some way to meeting needs, but it has been reported to me that valuers are being paid £500 a day plus commission. Perhaps he can confirm that. Our sense of priorities seems topsy-turvy: we pay vets less than half what we pay valuers to value carcases after diagnosis. That is nonsensical and I hope that the Minister will consider it.

Mr. Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heath: I must be careful, because other Members want to speak, but I shall give way once more.

Mr. Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way a second time.
I have talked to valuers and we must be fair to them. They make two points: first, they need to value when the animal is alive, so they need to be on the scene quickly. Secondly, they face the same problems as vets in being unable to go on to farms. It is important to understand that there is a difference between clean and dirty vets, and valuers, and how that delays the process.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I am not convinced that valuers have to value while the animal is alive. If the Ministry changed its specifications, they would not have to do so. I suggest in the gentlest way possible that vets also have to examine animals while they are alive and they have the same restrictions placed on them. Perhaps there is an equivalence that he is not addressing.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister's offer to give Members of Parliament information on the epidemiology and other matters through a presentation. That is extremely helpful. However, on the provision of information to farmers and concerned people, I have serious worries about the extent of readiness. There is huge reliance on the internet, but it is a foreign country to an awful lot of farmers and they simply are not using it to get advice. They simply do not know what is put on the internet for their benefit and the amount of information sent to them on paper is nugatory. In fact, they have received practically none, which does not help them to deal effectively with the disease.
Information will not have been received by many people who keep animals on smallholdings. A few years ago, I would have counted myself as one, as I bred Tamworth pigs and kept a few breeding sows. As I had only a small herd, I would not have been on any list of farmers and it would have been difficult to find out what to do and what precautions to take. Those who think that that is not important should remember that the closure of Exmoor resulted from an outbreak in a flock of eight sheep. A small amount of infectivity in a tiny herd can cause a real problem.
More information should be made available and the Ministry could valuably have used intermediaries. That takes us back to the point about the use of ADAS officials, because there is also a case for using farmers themselves as intermediaries. They have offered their services as

liaison officers and they could talk to their colleagues. Surely we should take them up on that offer and use them effectively.
The clarity of the information provided leaves much to be desired. Partly because of the structure of government, there have been apparent mismatches between information and a hice from MAFF and from other Departments. That does not always happen in the devolved Administrations, however, and the guidance from the National Assembly for Wales, whose Minister for Rural Affairs is overseeing those matters, is immeasurably better than any so far produced in England, and I commend it to the House. It shows the advantages of genuinely joined-up government.
Welfare disposal schemes have been discussed and it is a great shame that the pig scheme at least is not yet in place. I understand the difficulties with sheep, but there is a real problem with pigs because weaners cannot be moved on for finishing and the older pigs are still hanging around. The welfare problem needs to be dealt with and we need clarity as to the welfare disposal schemes. We also need the potential for on-farm slaughter to assist the process.
On ewes, I have a story to tell from Mr. Guy Thomas-Everard, who farms in west Somerset. He has ewes in lamb that he wants to move to lambing sheds just across the A396. However, he needs a movement order and he got in touch with the Ministry two or three days ago to request one. He rang me this morning to say that he had been told that there was a licence sitting on a desk at the MAFF regional office in Bristol, but it could not be issued because there was no executive officer there to sign it. That is not satisfactory, as bureaucracy is overriding common sense. The matter needs to be considered.
Maureen Prince, who I believe lives in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the leader of the Conservative party, and her colleagues arranged to produce a disposal mechanism by cremating carcases on their property to stop piles of animals building up. The vets agreed, but the Ministry said no. Officials do not have to say yes or no on every single case; we should use common sense to fight the disease.
On welfare of people, I commend the Farm Crisis Network, which has been doing a marvellous job. Farmers are concerned about whether they can pay their taxes; they are worried about Lady day; they are worried about their rent; they are worried about how to make ends meet. That is the main problem, and the point has been repeatedly made that it goes well beyond farming.
Shopkeepers in my constituency in towns well away from farming and tourist areas all say that their businesses are being decimated, mainly because a lot of them depend on people visiting out of season, perhaps at this time of year. Such people are generally fairly well off. They read The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, which tell them that they must not go to country areas. Being socially aware and responsible, they do not—and do not spend their money. As a result, the newsagent, the butcher and the food shop, for instance, experience cash flow problems.
Although I welcomed the announcement made by the Minister for the Environment, serious questions remain to be asked. Many measures are still being considered, rather than being introduced. Moreover, it appears from what we


heard from the Prime Minister today, that the relief is going only to communities identified as being rural—communities of fewer than 3,000. Many of the problems exist in market towns with populations of more than 3,000, and if they are left out the help will not reach those whom it needs to reach. We need much more clarity about the arrangements relating to value-added and other tax.
Mr. Guy Thomas-Everard, to whom I am indebted for his contribution, says that he was in touch with the Taunton Inland Revenue office today. After a delay, he was told to ring a special helpline number. When he did so, he was told to ring the Taunton tax office, which then said that it had no information above the Government's plans and could not help. We can do without lack of co-ordination of that kind.
Let me say something about the financial position of farmers specifically. It would help us enormously to know what is to be done about cattle aged over 30 months, and cattle going through the over-30-months barrier, while they are in a restricted area. It would also help us enormously to know what will happen to lambs that would normally be taken to market but which, by the time the restrictions end, will unfortunately be mutton.

Mr. Livsey: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Heath: Yes, for the last time.

Mr. Livsey: Is it not extraordinary that people with lambs that are ready for marketing and—in my constituency, certainly—are within 10 miles of a slaughterhouse cannot market them, because they are in a restricted area? This morning the Minister told the Select Committee that sending animals directly to the slaughterhouse was the option carrying the least risk. Would it not improve farmers' cashflow and get the meat to the supermarkets?

Mr. Heath: That is self-evident, and I hope that the Minister will consider it.
I understand that there has been an almost automatic derogation to allow grazing of agri-environmental scheme land under the current emergency. That is very welcome, but will the Minister also consider delaying the 31 May deadline for new applications for the countryside stewardship scheme? At present, no application can properly be made because no one can go on to the land—and once the deadline has been missed, a whole year will pass before assistance is received.
Let me ask a more fundamental question. Will the Minister look at commodity prices? We hoped that the dairy industry had finally secured an uplift in milk prices over the past month or so, but that now seems a forlorn hope. We also hoped that there might be an improvement in meat prices, but there is now a very variable situation throughout the country, and the lack of an effective market—because of the lack of literal markets—means that prices are depressed, especially in certain sectors. Will the Minister consider the National Beef Association's proposals for a price-fixing mechanism as a temporary measure? That would restore at least some common sense while no genuine market exists.
As a great many Members wish to speak, I shall draw my remarks to a close. I hope that the Minister has not ruled out the possibility of a degree of consequential-loss

compensation, for which we have argued from day one. I am thinking particularly of those who are directly affected by Government decisions over which they have no control: they cannot make alternative arrangements, and meanwhile they are experiencing substantial losses.
Will the Minister ensure that the strongest possible case is put to the Government for proper use of contingency funds? If this is not a crisis of the kind for which such funds are intended, I do not know what is. The Ministry should ensure that other Departments are mobilised as well, because we are fighting a war against this disease, and if we are to continue to do so we must ensure that all available resources are deployed effectively. I am afraid that many people in rural areas, while applauding some of the Minister's actions, say that not enough has been done so far.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: There is a lot of anguish in my constituency today. That was demonstrated this morning, when a number of my constituents from the inner Lakeland area, in particular, the town of Keswick—under the flag of the Cumbria crisis alliance, which was set up recently—spoke of their concern. I have also had meetings with representatives of the tourism industry over the last couple of weeks, most recently at my home last weekend. A number of people attended, including representatives of all the tradesmen in my constituency and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
There are problems, and there is a feeling that many of them are not being addressed. It is not just a question of a Government response. So far, 193 businesses have told the Cumbria tourist board that they are in trouble. For example, 17 of Cumbria's 24 youth hostels have closed. In fact, however, the Lake district is effectively still open, because many of our towns and villages are still providing the facilities that they have historically provided. The problem exists on the fells and at the access points. They are closed, but there are still many parts of Cumbria that warrant visits by tourists. Keswick is still open; our attractions are still open.
Before reaching the centrepiece of my speech, I want to say something about the measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment yesterday. They are welcome as a first stage, but it is important to keep a close eye on developments over the coming weeks. There will be further problems despite the introduction of those measures, and dramatic action may be needed to resolve them.
Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) advocated a subsidy for hoteliers and other operators in the Lake district national park to help them with their advertising bills, so that they can decide where to advertise in the national media. I support that idea, and also ask my hon. Friends to keep in mind the suggestion that I made yesterday—that attractions in the county should be subsidised. Honeypot attractions may well be the best way of bringing people back. The county contains more than 100 such attractions, many of which are still open. There are lake cruises, sports centres and environmental attractions, all of which could well be supported with taxpayers' money.
I think that the county's car parks should be free. I also think that, as the crisis develops, we should seriously consider introducing a system of free public transport, enabling people to travel throughout the Lake district easily and without expense.
I turn to what I believe to be an important issue. There are problems within MAFF in Cumbria. I believe that they will be addressed, but I think that my constituents and certainly the farmers are entitled to know that we know what they are.
The work that the vets have been doing is wonderful; they are much appreciated by the farmers. In my office, we have had repeated calls from farmers saying how pleased they are with the service that is being provided. However, the problem in the county is in MAFF's management structure. Indeed, the director—the local officer responsible for operations—has not proved competent in dealing with the crisis. The machine has been desperately slow. There has been a lack of lateral thinking. That local officer has not got things in Cumbria under control, despite the information that he has been giving Ministers and the private office to the effect that things are under control: they are not.
There has been too much sticking to protocol. As far as I can see, there has been a complete breakdown in communication between Cumbria and MAFF officers in London. Information has not been getting through on the failure of resources to deal with the escalating crisis, but I am assured by Ministers that the financial resources are there. That is not the problem; it is a logistical problem. Indeed, I welcome the most recent initiatives that have been taken by the Government in that area.
One very informed person told me that the management insisted on every box being ticked. That perhaps indicates the nature of the problem. Others have said that the local machine has been an old dinosaur at work, and that decisions were taking too long.
More control is needed at local vet level so that fast action can be taken and all the necessary arrangements introduced. The six-day delay from notification to disposal has been unacceptable. That has been exploited by the media in the county, reasonably, in my view, because it is a matter of legitimate concern. To this day, I cannot understand why the MAFF representative in Cumbria was not relaying to the Department his particular concerns in that area. I do not think that, in 22 years, I have ever criticised a civil servant from the Floor of the House of Commons, but the way the situation has been managed by senior management has been such a disaster that I have to say it; this is the forum in which to say it.
Another constituent said that we were not getting on top of the problem. We are still dealing only with reported cases, not with potentially traceable cases. I understand that the water board and a number of contractors have offered heavy equipment. I am told that they have been turned down. Where are the Royal Engineers? Why was there a shortage early on of slaughterers? Why was the centre told that everything was in order when there was a shortage of slaughterers? Why were we not told nationally that there was a shortage of vets? Every hon. Member in the county was picking that up, but the last people to admit it were those in the Department itself.
The other day, when a MAFF official was being interviewed on camera by Border Television, I had to intervene to protest at the way in which the questions were being answered. Even as late as our meeting in Kendal last Thursday, officials were not prepared to spell out what the deficiencies were in the county. It was only after I had intervened that I noticed a change in the approach of that interviewee. I am told that there is no shortage of money; I am satisfied that it is simply a matter of organisation.
May I say how much I welcome the appointment of the new controller of operations, Mrs. Jane Brown, a grade five civil servant who in the past day has gone up from London? Let her be fully aware of the fact that I will unreservedly support her, as I hope other hon. Members will, in some of the difficult decisions that she will have to take. If we are going to wipe the problem out, we must adopt a fresh, almost ruthless approach. We cannot afford the delays that have characterised the approach up to now; delays have certainly characterised the approach in Cumbria.
I congratulate Ben Gill on the courageous way in which he has led the NFU during this difficult period. He has had to stand up to complaints in Cumbria from local NFU representatives, who are under pressure from local communities. He has stood by a principle that he believes in—the idea that real action was necessary.
I refer to the future. My view is that the way the disease has been managed in Cumbria has been so unsatisfactory—I have mentioned a civil servant who has been responsible for the programme—that the National Audit Office will inevitably have to hold an inquiry. It will be as a result of that inquiry that the truth will unfold.
What worries me—I will be frank—is that the Government will be blamed for deficiencies at local level that were not fully revealed to Government. [Interruption.] Oh, yes. Ministers are certainly responsible for what has happened. I understand that, but I am worried about the fact that a lot of the information was not getting through to them. We expect our civil servants to reveal to Ministers in times of crisis precisely what is happening on the ground. In this case, it did not happen.

Mr. David Maclean: In the 18 years I have been privileged to be a Member of Parliament representing a wonderful part of Cumbria, we have faced various threats: the possibility of Sellafield closing or losing jobs, of the north-west railway line going into decline and not being repaired, and of Carlisle not getting a new hospital. All have been major issues, but I have never before seen or faced the complete meltdown of our county. The danger we face in Cumbria is that we will suffer such losses in the rural sector, in tourism and in other industries that it will take us years and years to recover.
I say to colleagues on both sides of the House who have two or three cases of foot and mouth in their constituencies, to those who have 48 or 45 cases in their constituencies—they can appreciate the extent of the damage—or to those who have 12 or 15 cases: I pray to God that they do not get 130 cases in their constituency. I pray to God that it does not get into their cattle herds and cut a swathe through their area, as it is doing through my constituency tonight.
Foot and mouth is now hitting farms in my constituency at the rate of more than 1 an hour: there have been 29 cases in the past 24 hours. I cannot count the number of sheep that have been slaughtered: it must be between 5,000 and 10,000. I give the numbers of cattle that have been slaughtered on individual farms: 152, 100, 184, 225, 320, 154, 150, 160, 157, 467, 425, 400, 205 and 870. Can colleagues imagine the cremation pyre for 870 prime cattle? What is happening in that part of north Cumbria tonight is almost unimaginable.
There will have to be a mega-inquiry after this. Today is not the day for recriminations. I could fill volumes with the stories that I have heard in the past few weeks on how the problem has been handled, but I wish to flag up a few issues. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) has been right to say that the whole issue has been a shambles at times, but he should not put the blame solely on one official in Cumbria. It was on 5 March that I called for the Royal Engineers and Royal Logistic Corps to be called in to help. The help arrived only this week, 15 days later. On 8 March, I called for more resources and said that the situation was out of control in Cumbria. Two days later, the Minister said that everything was under control.
On 10 March, I called for more vets from around the world to be called in. I know the MAFF contingency plan—call up Commonwealth vets and some others through the vets network—but I thought that we needed more. On 11 March, I called for vetelinary students to be mobilised and vets to be permitted to authorise killing without waiting for lab results. We are still sending 10 per cent. of tests for results. That is not necessary.
One Labour Member said that the vets had to make only one phone call, but one phone call to whom? Should they phone someone in Carlisle, or someone in London—someone who is not looking at the cattle and the sheep with the blisters? Why should a qualified vet have to phone anyone to say, "I have found cattle with blisters; it is foot and mouth," and then seek permission to authorise killing? It may only involve a matter of minutes for the vet to pick up the phone, but I suggest that the decision may take slightly longer.
On 13 March, I sent the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a ten-point plan. I say to the hon. Member for Workington that I sent it not to Carlisle, but directly to the Minister's office. In point 1, I said:
We are desperately short of vets, particularly in Cumbria.
I urged the Minister to call the colleges as they, the universities and the schools would be going on holiday soon. Hundreds of student vets would be available, and we should get them in now.
I asked for the five-day quarantine; ban on vets to be lifted; I referred to that as recycling dirty vets more quickly. I also said:
When the new 'suspect' farm is contiguous to or near a confirmed farm then the 5 day ban is now totally unnecessary. Of course contaminated vets should not go near a likely clean farm of a suspect miles away.
I understand that that is now under consideration, but I called for it on 13 March.
In point 2, I said that vets must be
given the authority to order a kill as soon as they see Foot and Mouth on a farm.
I asked the Minister to let Ministry vets

slaughter herds if they honestly believe, from the clinical signs, that it is foot and mouth.
In point 3, I said:
Valuation and slaughter teams must go in immediately after a vet confirms Foot and Mouth.
There are plenty of valuers around … We have cases in Cumbria of animals waiting up to 10 days to be slaughtered after a farmer and a vet suspect Foot and Mouth disease.
That was a week ago and the length of time has come down considerably. It is now down to two or three days, but that is still far too long.
In point 4, I said:
Burial must now be included as an option.
Please intervene with the Environment Agency and insist that burial can be a safe option especially for sheep. You do not need to bury everything and with vast quantities of lime it is a safe option when the water table is low.
I asked the Minister to give himself
three options—burning, rendering and burial, and that would give MAFF a chance to get ahead of the game.
In point 5, I called for the power to seal off minor roads; in point 6, I called for disinfectant zones to be created on major roads. In point 8, I said that all unnecessary activity in the heavily infected areas of the country should be stopped. In point 9, I called for the setting up of
a national MAFF advisory telephone bank with lots of staff to tell farmers what to do about Form D restrictions.
I have lots of evidence of farmers being given a Form D and no-one then contacts them again. I am told that one farmer, in Cumbria, in ignorance, has moved silage from one farm to the other and spread Foot and Mouth disease.
Finally, I said that massive television and radio advertising should be used to warn and advise the public. Apparently, that will now happen, but I called for it on 13 March. On 14 March, I wrote to the Minister to beg him to grant Cumbria county council the power to close minor roads.
On 15 March—the famous Ides of March—Nye had the mistake of the Minister, when he included cattle. It is trendy these days for people to sue because of stress experienced for minor things. Last Thursday night in Cumbria, I could have found 10,000 farmers who would have sued for millions because of the stress that they suffered before the Minister had the decency, correctly, to go back on television and apologise for the mistake that had been made.
On 17 March, in desperation, I wrote to the Minister again. I said that there were now two things to do. The first was to appoint a supremo to take command in Cumbria. A team of experts should be sent there and control should be devolved. I believe that Jane Brown has arrived there today. I am grateful to the Government for listening to my suggestion.
I also called for the Army, the Royal Engineers and the Royal Logistic Corps to organise things. I said that there were plenty of civil contractors and that we did not need troops digging trenches; civil engineers could do that. In Cumbria, there are dozens of firms that are not allowed on to farms; agricultural drainage engineers and contractors cannot go near farms. Their plant is sitting idle and they desperately want to help. I concluded by saying that the appalling delay in Cumbria had been caused by a failure of the whole logistical back-up system to kill and to dispose of animals quickly enough.
What we do not have in Cumbria—despite the Prime Minister's words today, I suspect that we will not have it by the end of the week—is the situation that I called for in my letter to the Minister. I said:
You must get to the situation that when a farmer calls with a suspect case, a MAFF vet can be there within two hours at most. If he or she, from a clinical examination, believes there is foot and mouth then that vet must have the authority to authorise the slaughter and make one telephone call to the Emergency Command Centre who will then dispatch completely self contained teams to deal with it. That team would have an auctioneer to do the valuation, a slaughter group to conduct humane slaughter with proper captive bolt pistols and they would be followed on to the site immediately by a big team of private contractors and/or aided by Army Engineers to dig the holes necessary, build the pyres and get the carcases onto them. That team should not come off the farm until the fires are out and a decontamination unit has decontaminated the farm along with all the vehicles, personnel and equipment of those who carried out the burn or burial.
Is that wrong? Have I got that plan wrong? From my experience as a MAFF Minister; from my lay experience as an appointee, by this Government, to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons; and from my knowledge as a junior officer in the Territorial Army, I know that there is a simple logistical task for the military to do. That task, understandably, was not for MAFF's qualified vets, who have their own speciality: diagnosing the disease and calling in the others.
Tonight, I am not confident, but we are slightly further down the road. So much time has been wasted, however. The disease has now reached epidemic proportions and a firestorm is sweeping through north Cumbria tonight. For the sake of our whole country, I say to those colleagues with one or two cases—or with 45, as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) has in his area—and to others with ten or a dozen cases: I hope that we in Cumbria have a unique epidemic and that that hotspot will remain unique to us. I would not wish this on the rest of the country for a king's ransom.
We must have on-farm burials in Cumbria. I will not bore the House by reading out the letter that I sent the Minister for the Environment on Sunday, urging him to overrule his own Environment Agency and to permit on-farm burials. I also wrote to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, urging him to overrule the Environment Agency. From all sides we have had demands to let burials on farms proceed. I know that that is MAFF policy; it has always been MAFF policy and it is the safest policy.
My criticism of the Government and of MAFF Ministers is that they should have had the courage to say that we faced a crisis of epidemic proportions and that, in most cases, there would be on-farm burial, except in a few cases where it was unsafe to do so. Cremation would then take over.
I beg the Minister not to use two council refuse tips in Cumbria—the waste tips at Hespin wood and Flusco quarry. Flusco quarry was going to be closed by the Environment Agency three years ago because it is a limestone quarry and even domestic garbage was leaking out. Now it has been lined with plastic and is to be sealed. A methane gas pipe is to be put in; if 6,000 sheep are put in it, it had better be a big pipe.
We have 100 years of experience of what happens to animals when they rot in the ground. We have no experience of what happens when they are in a sealed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Russell Brown: I do not intend to speak for too long this evening. I share the anguish of other Members and the worries of all those who are so desperately affected in the 29 areas of the country that have been touched by this outbreak of foot and mouth.
I appreciate that agriculture is an issue devolved to the Scottish Parliament; none the less, I would hope that Members in this House will appreciate that devolution can be swept to one side. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that there were 45 cases in my area; the latest figures I have show that that is rapidly increasing towards 60.
We must share the difficulties that face those affected. Some people, until four or five weeks ago, would have looked at agriculture and said, frankly, that it had nothing to do with them. Only now are they beginning to see that what is happening is seriously impacting on their lives and livelihoods.
Many animals in Dumfries and Galloway are still waiting to be slaughtered. The numbers involved are astonishing, especially given how many animals have been slaughtered already. I got a real glimpse of what was happening when I visited the community in Langholm in the east of my constituency a week last Friday. I was due to meet local people to discuss the impact that the outbreak was having on them, and what the future held. It was evening, and as I crossed the bridge into the town the fields to my left were on fire. That was the first time that I had ever witnessed the sight: television footage or newspaper photographs do not give a real impression of what it is like.
I hope that hon. Members attending the debate, and those who have not been able to do so, will read what has been said today, and consider the extent to which the disease is affecting people. For example, schoolchildren cannot begin to understand what is going wrong in their communities. They have been moved back and forth every day for perhaps a week or 10 days. There is smoke in the atmosphere, and the fields seem to be on fire after dark. That is not a healthy environment—not because of the smoke, but because of what people are seeing every day.
On the evening about which I am talking, I met the local community initiative group. We talked about concerns involving tourism and small rural shops. Rural areas do not have strong and vibrant economies, so everything is based on small and medium-sized enterprises. A lot of help will be needed in the future.
I have spoken in some detail with the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border several times over the past couple of weeks, and he has told me that his perception is that the authorities in Dumfries and Galloway are coping much better than their counterparts in Cumbria. The House has heard this evening, from the right hon. Gentleman and from my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours), how desperate the situation in Cumbria has been.
The Dumfries and Galloway local authority has co-ordinated the work in my area, and it has done an excellent job, controlling operations from a bunker at the


council headquarters. People working there have been through some pretty desperate days, and I think back to the Lockerbie air disaster in 1988. My predecessor in the constituency was constantly in touch with the command centre at that time, when it was also having to deal with an extremely difficult situation. I do not want to draw comparisons between then and now but this foot and mouth outbreak has been my worst nightmare. I only wish that I could wake up and find that it had never happened.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been criticised for saying that the outbreak was under control. I want to examine what controlling the disease has meant to those working at the sharp end in my area. They have tried to keep this terrible disease within the confines of the local authority boundary, and to ensure that it does not spill over. Clearly, the disease may have spilled over from Cumbria into my area, and vice versa, but we are trying desperately to ensure that it does not go further afield and reach Ayrshire and the Scottish borders.
A lot of help will be needed, and Ross Finnie, the Rural Affairs Minister of the Scottish Executive, will be making announcements in the coming days about what help will be made available. For my part, I have spoken to the banks to encourage them to help people affected by the outbreak. Only one of the three main banks in Scotland has responded to my appeal, and I am bitterly disappointed that they are not responding quickly enough to people's needs.
My constituency has five large estates, and many tenant farmers. I am not about to say that different treatment should be given to different people, but we must look closely at what is being done. Tenant farmers watching all that they own being wiped out must wonder how they will survive. If they want to stay in the business, they will have to hang on to the end of the year, when they can buy stock. However, the price of that stock will be much greater than it is at present. Breeding will take place next season, so businesses will only start to reap any benefits 18 months from now.
People cannot survive on fresh air, so support must be made available. Especially careful thought must be given to the problem of what we must do for some tenant farmers.
There are some excellent pedigree animals in my area. People are desperately worried about the Cheviot flocks grazing on hills in the east of my constituency, and about what can be done to protect them. There are also excellent flocks of Suffolks and Texels, and we must do our utmost to protect them, as their strong bloodlines extend over generations.
I have also been contacted by families with pet sheep and lambs. One's heart has to go out to them too; they need as much support as possible.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will be sick of hearing me say what I have said so often over the past couple of weeks, which is that I have almost ceased operating as a politician. I am more of a social worker, talking to people on the telephone for 30 and 40 minutes at a time, rather than the usual five minutes. In the current situation, all hon. Members must undertake such long conversations with people, simply as a matter of decency. I am delighted to have been able to put social workers at Dumfries and Galloway council in

touch with people whom I consider to be at risk. They are happy to step in and ensure that people are getting the support that they need.
At the end of the day, questions will be asked about the cause of the outbreak, and who is to blame. We will have to get back to the fundamentals: if there has been something wrong in the conduct of someone's business which has caused this tragedy, we will have to deal with that. I would go as far as to say that, if necessary, the matter should be dealt with through the court system.
The shape of our countryside will be different in the future. There is always a glimmer of hope when a tragedy such as this comes along. We will have to look closely at agriculture, and all the other elements that feed into it. I hope that we will be able to do so sooner rather than later.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the results of the Divisions deferred from a previous day.
On the motion on Weights and Measures, the Ayes were 182, the Noes were 263, so the motion was disagreed to.
On the motion on European Security and Defence Policy, the Ayes were 303, the Noes were 133, so the motion was agreed to.

[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Foot and Mouth Disease

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: No one could have heard the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and not be moved by the great devastation that has hit his constituency. He has prayed that no other farmers go through what those in his constituency have gone through, but farmers everywhere fear that that is exactly what will happen. That burden will overhang the farming industry and community over the next few weeks.
I was horrified to hear the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food say that he did not think that the crisis had passed, and that there were many more cases still to come. That admission was brave, but it is worrying and scary for any hon. Member in this Chamber with an agricultural constituency.
The Opposition do not get many days on which to choose the subject of the debate, yet this is the second time that we have used our Opposition Day to discuss something that the Government should have found the time for. This is a national emergency—the Government have found no time to allow us to debate it, yet the Opposition have.
The Government have sent out mixed messages during the crisis. A newspaper report of 12 March said of the Minister of Agriculture:
While the Government denied that it was being overwhelmed by the foot and mouth crisis, Mr. Brown insisted that he was 'absolutely certain' that the devastating outbreak was under control.


The right hon. Gentleman gave a reassurance then which he was unable to give with any certainty today. I was very concerned by the Minister's admission.
Let us be in no doubt that this is a disaster for the countryside. Things were bad enough before the outbreak started; the agricultural industry has been going through a continuous crisis for quite some time. The accountants Deloitte and Touche published an analysis of farm incomes in October 2000. Average-sized farms of 202 hectares that earned £80,000 in the mid-1990s earned just £8,000 in 2000, and might run up losses of £4,000 in 2001. That was before the outbreak started.
The crisis is comprehensive—the fall in farmgate prices and incomes is affecting every sector of the industry. Net farm incomes are down by 16 per cent., dairy farm incomes by 21 per cent., upland livestock farm incomes by 26 per cent., and lowland livestock farm incomes are down £1,500.
The industry was just starting to believe that there were signs of a turnaround before the outbreak of foot and mouth. Having gone through a very bleak period, farmers saw some signs that things might be starting to get better, but any improvement has now been totally wiped out.
I represent a constituency of outstanding natural beauty, which covers a large area of the Peak district. More than 20 million people visit the Peak district each year. It is, without doubt, the lungs of Britain, with a catchment area of Sheffield, Manchester and the west midlands. On a bank holiday, it feels like the whole of that catchment area comes to my constituency. Yet I believe that we have taken the countryside for granted. We think that it exists because of nature, but that is not the case. It is farmed, maintained and looked after by farmers—that is what makes it the countryside that we love and enjoy going to see. If we do not realise that, we will be in peril of losing one of Britain's great national assets—its countryside.
There has been much talk about the 1967 outbreak and the comparisons that can be drawn, but I do not think that many comparisons can be made, because the farming environment has changed dramatically. Farms are now bigger and when a farm is infected, more animals are involved. For the past 20 years, Governments of both colours have encouraged farmers to diversify but now they find that the money that they invested in diversification is not bringing in the returns that it should. That is one of the great problems of the rural economy. We must remember that we are talking about the future of the rural economy, not just that of the agricultural industry.
Too many mixed messages have been, and are still being, sent out by the Government. We heard Ministers say yesterday that the countryside was open and that people can go there providing that they do not come across cattle and sheep. In the Peak district, we do not have much arable farmland; it is mainly given over to livestock.
Derbyshire county council has issued the following notice:
HELP STOP THE SPREAD OF FOOT AND MOUTH
Help us protect our countryside—DON'T VISIT UNLESS YOU HAVE TO.
I believe that the county council put up that notice in good faith. Yesterday, however, the Minister for the Environment gave a different message to the House and

to the nation. Can we please have some consistency? People do not want foot and mouth to spread, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said, but they need to know what the advice is from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Towns in my constituency such as Bakewell and Ashbourne have been devastated by the lack of visitors. Indeed, some business people have set up a mutual self-help group, known as Hartington and Newhaven Development, or HAND. I shall be going to see those people on Saturday morning because they want to express to me their concerns about the future of their industry and the way in which they can survive the crisis. One of the establishments in the group was serving 60 lunches until a few weeks ago; it now serves three or four. That is the kind of devastating impact that the outbreak has had on small rural businesses as well as those in the agricultural sector. It is incumbent on us as Members of Parliament to tell the Government that those are the concerns that businesses throughout the Peak district have to face, partly because of the Government's mixed messages about whether access to the countryside should be encouraged or prevented. That is the problem.
I hope that the Government will get their act together in the next few days and send out one, single message so that people can understand what the criteria are for access to the countryside and certain areas. That is particularly important in the run up to Easter, which is a tremendously busy time for our small rural businesses. If they lose their takings or their takings are substantially down at Easter, they will not be around next Easter or even this summer.
This is a crisis for the agricultural industry; it is also a crisis for rural Britain and the rural environment. For far too long, we have taken the countryside for granted. The Government have brought in right to roam measures to give people greater access to the countryside, but the truth is that this crisis threatens the very existence of our countryside.

Mrs. Diana Organ: Following the contributions of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), none of us wants the maelstrom that has hit those areas to be visited on our rural areas.
In my constituency, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in his opening statement, there is a concentration of the outbreak of foot and mouth. There are nine confirmed cases and others are suspected.
Three weeks ago, at the beginning of the outbreak, when the Forest of Dean was made an infected area due to the outbreak on the other side of the Wye valley in Herefordshire, I attended a planning meeting that included representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food, the police, the Forestry Commission, the district council, trading standards and emergency planning departments, as well as the commoners from the statutory Forest of Dean. At that meeting, I raised the important issue of sheep roaming free in the statutory Forest of Dean. We are not sure exactly how many sheep there are, but believe that there are about 5,000. They are grazed there by right of cot commoners or badgers.
I asked whether the sheep would be mustered and penned together. The area of the forest is wide, and contains many towns and villages. I was told that there had been advice that it would not be good policy to muster the sheep since that would cause tremendous disturbance and disruption, which would increase the risk of spreading infection. I was told that only 40 per cent. of commoners had holdings elsewhere for sheep, which raised the difficulty of where the sheep would go. The forest enterprise could identify only five areas in the statutory forest that could be fenced in, and even they would create problems with grazing the animals. I made it clear that I would want to see someone take responsibility for the problem. I was told that responsibility for managing and checking the sheep, and for keeping them in the statutory forest area would, as it always had before, fall on the commoners themselves.
Since then, the situation has changed. At Coleford magistrates court today, Glyn Barclay a badger, was tried at short notice and found guilty of allowing his sheep to roam free outside the statutory forest. Indeed, they were roaming down the A48. He was heavily fined, and the case was dealt with quickly to show its importance.
There has also been a confirmed outbreak in the village of English Bicknor, outside the statutory forest. A couple of weeks ago, free-roaming sheep went on to the farm in question from the statutory forest. The farmers were told by MAFF to pen those sheep separately and feed them. They did so, but have now had a confirmed outbreak of foot and mouth disease, although it arose not from a link with those sheep, but from a link with Ross market.
On Friday, at my surgery, a gentleman arrived breathless and late. He apologised, and said that he had been held up by a sheep truck. I said, "They can't be moving sheep around; how do you know there were sheep in it?" "I could see them," he said, and we realised that he was talking about an area inside the statutory forest where one of the commoners was moving sheep in an open truck.
In addition, there has been a confirmed case at a farm in Blakeney, which abuts the statutory forest, and we must consider the possibility that that will infect the sheep in the forest. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and the head of the planning team in Gloucestershire to ask them to reconsider the decision taken three weeks ago so that we can go ahead with mustering the forest's free-roaming sheep. We need those sheep to be properly managed, as they patently have not been to date. I want those 5,000 sheep checked to ensure that they do not have the disease, and we must be sure to protect the surrounding agricultural community.
It is clear that in recent weeks some—though not all—commoners have behaved irresponsibly. Indeed, MAFF has made it known to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that commoners have been obstructive in letting out their sheep at night. Such behaviour contrasts directly with the measures taken in the surrounding agricultural community Other farmers are rigorously enforcing controls and taking every possible precaution.
I seek urgent reconsideration of this matter. The decision must be taken on the advice of experts, but since we have all suddenly become experts on foot and mouth, let it be left to real experts. The free-roaming sheep could cause a serious risk, although I appreciate that there has

until now been no evidence that infection among any Forest of Dean flock has come from them. I do not ask for a cull, which would be a complete change of policy. At present, the sheep are clean, and a cull would also include deer in the forest. However, we must consider penning and controlling the sheep since the commoners are not doing so themselves.
In my area, as in all others, farmers are extremely anxious, and not only on the nine farms that have foot and mouth. Those farmers are at a loss to know what to do as they grieve the loss of their animals and businesses, some of which may have been built up over generations.
I have a few further issues to discuss, including concern about mixed messages from MAFF. There are problems with the website. Although it is excellent in part, I have been told that it is not updated frequently enough. Local farmers are finding out about outbreaks from the local news rather than the MAFF website. Nor is it precise enough. It will say, for example, as it did in a case last week, that there has been one on a farm near Lydney. That information was no good since the farm was in Purton, which is not near Lydney. Farmers need to know whether an outbreak is on the farm next door or 3 km away. The information on the website is not accurate enough.
I am also concerned about information for the general public. We have all become experts on foot and mouth, and I have heard some curious stories. One lady, for example, rang up to say that she knew that sheep in a nearby field had foot and mouth because all the baby lambs had pink legs. Lots of new-born lambs have pink legs, and it is not a sign of foot and mouth. Suddenly, however, everyone is an expert.
We need to put out more accurate information for the general public whom we are asking to play a part by keeping out of the countryside in infected areas and away from footpaths and the statutory forest. We need to make sure that people do not panic and build up myths that could damage our farming community and tourism industry. We need accurate information.
I want to touch on what is happening to other rural businesses in my constituency. The Forest of Dean is beautiful and unique, and it depends heavily on tourism. Indeed, it depends more on tourism than it does on livestock. Although I recognise that we must do absolutely all that we can to secure the future of the livestock industry by eradicating this dreadful disease, I do not want the tourism industry sacrificed.
Since 27 February, my area has been classified as infected. That creates punitive problems for businesses such as local pubs, outdoor centres, centres running canoe courses and the Newent bird of prey centre. All those places are either closed or serving few visitors. Cancellations have been made at our hostels and at all our caving centres. We must recognise that people can cope with a problem for a short time, but that they face cancellations not for now, but for June and July as schools pull out. We need much more support. We need not sympathy alone, but measures to tide businesses over until the affected area is cleared and we can open up the forest again.
The work of the taskforce must be widely publicised among businesses. I have been asked what the Government are doing and have said that the taskforce would report and that a transitional package would be put


in place. But people do not know what is in that package, and I must point out that there has not been enough information even in the House of Commons Library about what the taskforce is doing.
I welcome, as small businesses will, deferrals of value added tax on businesses, the three-month business rate relief and support from the Small Business Service in the form of a loan guarantee scheme. All that is good, but we need more. The taskforce must go on meeting and making recommendations. That information needs to be disseminated to businesses close to infected areas so that they know what help they can obtain during this difficult period.
Many people in rural areas have made a terrific sacrifice. Although we welcome the work that is going on, the rural community—farmers and small businesses—must have clear messages both from MAFF and other Departments about how the Government are handling the matter and seeing it through, and about what we are doing to assist businesses in this dreadful situation.

7 pm

Mr. David Curry: I want to raise some practical issues that affect my constituency. There is only one outbreak cluster in the area—in Hawes in North Yorkshire. Although my constituency does not have an outbreak, a large part of it is in an infected area, so the impact is strong.
My first concern is for farmers in an infected area who do not have the disease on their farms. They are heavily restricted and cannot sell or move their animals. Their cattle are going over the 30-month limit—cattle are often marketed at 28 or 29 months. There is a similar problem with lambs. When they push up their second teeth, they are sold as mutton and that can mean a 50 per cent. price discount.
Those farmers do not stand to receive compensation, but they are losing substantially because their animals are eating their capital, yet generating no revenue. The matter is serious. Those farmers are directly concerned. Will the Minister of State look urgently at that matter when she considers compensation? The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already said that compensation is needed in relation to the over-30-months scheme for cattle.
I want to draw attention to the problems of farmers whose ewes are away from the main farm. The Minister said that they have an option: they could repatriate the ewes voluntarily, provided that the animals were passing from an area of lesser infection to one of greater infection. In practice, there is little of the voluntary about that; many farmers have no real choice. Their ewes are in lamb in extraordinarily difficult circumstances—on small patches of land where little food is available. There is high mortality among ewes. The farmer cannot bury or dispose of the carcases. There is also high mortality among lambs. In my constituency, one farmer's ewes were eating ivy and so produced many dead lambs. If a farmer wants to bring his sheep home, the sheer hassle involved is almost prohibitive.
I understand why the regulations are in place, but the distances—as well as the series of journeys to get disinfectant—and the costs mean that in practice, for a

farmer who is really concerned about animal welfare, the only sensible choice is slaughter. However, that farmer will not receive proper compensation: because his action is deemed voluntary, he will receive only two thirds of the price. A responsible farmer would not regard that as a voluntary choice. Will the Minister of State consider that matter seriously? The animal welfare implications are very real.
The most chilling remarks that I have heard in my constituency during the past few days have been from farmers who ring me up to say, "The best thing for us would be to get the disease on our farm. Then we'd get the proper compensation. We are suffering because we do not have the disease — There is only a short step from farmers who think that the restrictions are unreasonable or perverse and who are suffering because they are combating the disease to people who might be tempted to relax their guard or even, in marginal cases, attract the disease. The sheer frustration and anguish of farmers, their sense of vulnerability and foreboding, cannot be exaggerated.
It would help if the Minister of State explained why some of the exclusion zones have been drawn as they are. Around Hawes, they are extremely wide; they stretch 25 miles to Ripon, yet they are much shorter in other directions. There are some perverse lines on the map. I realise that one needs to identify proper traceable features, but farmers who are 25 miles away from an outbreak and under restriction know that other farmers only half that distance away are not under restriction. The Minister of State should consider local authorisation for the revision of those boundaries where that can be done sensibly and rationally so as to liberate some farmers. The older idea of drawing a circumference around affected areas might be considered.
I want to look ahead. At the end of this experience, we shall need to draw the threads together. I want to make a pre-emptive strike by noting three conclusions that I hope will not be drawn because they are entirely false.
The first is that the outbreak is all the fault of intensive farming. That is the greatest load of nonsense I have heard. As foot and mouth is endemic in the third world, yet the United States has managed to eliminate it entirely, it is difficult to argue that intensive farming generates the disease. That is a false and ridiculous conclusion.
The second false idea relates to abattoirs. There is a case for small, local abattoirs—but not on the grounds of animal health. The case for such abattoirs is that they serve a local market and meet a proper need. It is not to do with hygiene. We closed down many abattoirs, and many of them badly needed it. Between 10 and 15 years ago, Britain was heavily over-abattoired; there was much surplus capacity.
It is ironic that the disease was detected in an inspection of a modern, up-to-date abattoir. I am in favour of such abattoirs. Of course, small abattoirs have a role, but they, too, must be modern and up to date. Let us consider such abattoirs sensibly rather than in the context of the romantic folklore that, by definition, they are superior to what has replaced them.
The third false statement is that the outbreak is all the fault of the supermarkets. I regret that the Prime Minister made such silly remarks about supermarkets when he visited Gloucester recently. The supermarkets have probably done more to change the shape of the common


agricultural policy and of agricultural development in the United Kingdom than any politician. By and large, they have done so for the better.
We must look to the future—the Minister of Agriculture talked about that. Many people will leave agriculture as a result of this experience. The average age of farmers in Britain is 59. Farmers will receive compensation if their animals are slaughtered. I accept that he has said that he has tried to make that compensation generous rather than otherwise, but for many farmers, it will be their retirement pension. He would be well advised to consider whether some modest outgoers scheme might not be a useful weapon to deploy at this stage, despite the arguments levelled against such schemes in the past.
We must also bear in mind the heavy costs of stock replacement. The Minister of Agriculture may be paying a good price for the cull, but that price probably comes nowhere near the replacement cost of the animals, simply because less stock will be available Some farmers who are suffering now may do well soon if they have stock available for sale as replacement stock and a marketplace for it.
The shape of British agriculture will change dramatically; BSE did not change it but foot and mouth will. It is inevitable that live animal exports will come under scrutiny. It will be difficult to resume them. I have supported such exports. My constituency earns a large part of its agricultural livelihood from sheep, and export plays a part. It will be difficult to resume exports, especially as only one vessel, the Farmers Ferry, is used. We may have to examine the practicalities involved. There will be consequences for the market. The Minister of Agriculture talked about the need to restore a functioning marketplace; those factors must be taken into the equation.
Scrutiny of live auction marts is also inevitable. I support them. In my constituency, where many farmers lead an isolated life, the mart is the one place where they meet other farmers. Indeed, if Government are looking for an instrument to tackle social exclusion, the live auction mart could play a major role in rural parts of the United Kingdom.
I realise that questions will be asked because of the problems of transmission, so the Government must think about what measures might be necessary to reassure people that the live auction system can continue, while eliminating any risk that might stem from them. At the same time, I believe that introducing a pause before traded animals can be dispersed is likely to be the inevitable consequence.
We will also need to consider meat imports. Meat can be imported from regions where foot and mouth does not exist, but from countries where it does, and many people will want to be reassured that the controls that govern the movement of that product in the country of origin are strong enough to enable us to have confidence in that trade. If we regionalised the United Kingdom and had regions that were free of the disease, I doubt very much whether it would be easy to export our products on the basis that some of our regions were free of foot and mouth when it was endemic in others.
The disease will accelerate the trend away from support for production towards support for the public good. Even before this crisis, the question for farmers was what they

should do in a society that is well-off and well fed, that has no problems with food security and that is mobile and environmentally conscious. The answer is that they will have to move to new marketplaces, going up the food chain and producing better food. They will also have to move to recreational and environmental markets.
We, the other parts of society, must define what we want in terms of the public good and what we are willing to pay to achieve that public good—a more difficult problem. We should have that sensible debate sooner rather than later, as it would take us entirely in the direction that the previous Government and this Government have been going, to try to move away from supporting production to defining agriculture in the wider rural context. That is the sensible way forward.
Finally, the Government are taking the right actions, but there is a danger that they will lose the argument because of the problems involved in implementing them. If an animal is slaughtered and disposed of rapidly, that is better than if it hangs around. Putting right the practice is an important element of winning the arguments of principle involved in the Government's actions, and I am sure that they will observe that importance.

Mr. Michael Connarty: It is rather ironic that 1 should follow the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) in the debate, as we have recently been to Poland together, where he inveigled me into talking about agriculture for much of the time, when I wanted to talk about the chemical industries and the development of information technology, which are my natural interests.
Some might not have predicted that I would take part in this debate, given that Falkirk, East is mostly an industrial and residential constituency, but I can claim some credentials because, between 1980 and 1990. when 10 per cent. of the beef farmers in the Forth valley area went out of business for economic reasons, they came to me, as leader of the council, and we struck up a very good dialogue which continued between 1992 and 1997. When they came to the House to lobby they would see me, even though I was the Member for Falkirk, East, because they did not seem to receive much of a hearing from the former Member for Stirling.
The new Member for that constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), has a very close relationship with the farming community, but she has been rostered to sit on the Whips Bench today. However, we have been talking about the issue, and I know that she is in close contact with the farming and tourist industries in Stirling.
Although Falkirk, East is mostly an industrial and residential constituency, it has a hinterland, as do all constituencies, except those in cities. Sadly, that hinterland contains two farms at which foot and mouth has been suspected during the recent outbreak. I told the farmer and his family that I would mention their plight today. Although their animals have not suffered from foot and mouth, outsiders might think that they would be better compensated if they had, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has suggested, because it seems that they will receive no compensation for the losses that they suffered when their farm was embargoed and movements frozen while it was under inspection.
The farmer's mother and wife came to see me at the weekend, and they were in a rather emotional condition. They are concerned about the hard work of a young, enterprising farmer, who is under 50—well below the average age of 59. He decided to diversify in what seemed to be the right way. In fact, he became a haulier, stocker and wholesale sheep dealer for abattoirs, the markets and the supermarkets. He had a well-worked-out business plan, and he seemed to be doing very well until the recent outbreak.
Although some sniping and posturing has occurred, most of the debate has been enlightening, intelligent and balanced. It does not help farmers if hon. Members try to score points rather than settling down together to work in a bipartisan manner to solve what is a massive problem for them.
I want to raise the issue of consequential loss. It is clear that there is a spectrum of claims. That spectrum includes matters far removed from farming and the breeding and rearing of animals, but I hope that farmers and those in farming-related enterprises, directly linked to the production and distribution of animals, will be treated slightly differently from those who may also suffer, but have a tenuous link to the industry because they happen to be in the rural environment.
The problem occurred as a consequence of something that happened on the farms. As a non-farmer who does not come from a farming community, I have to say that it happened because of something done by a farmer. Someone did something in the farm food chain that caused the disease to spread. All the people whose livelihoods depend on farming should be considered to be victims of that act. I heard the Minister say that one of his aims was to put more money into farmers' pockets, and he said that the Government will consider whether more can be done.
I want to relate the story of the Stewart family of Drum farm in Bo'ness. They are a young family who had broken away from rearing animals, by fattening sheep for four weeks before market. Those who know about farming understand that that involves feeding high-protein cake. Although the cake is expensive, those who use it normally get their reward in the end because they can sell lean sheep at a good price. The family purchases for abattoirs on a wholesale basis and they offer overnight lairage for local abattoirs. They also buy sheep to sell on to the supermarkets.
The family also owns a livestock haulage firm, running eight lorries. Theirs is a small firm, not a large concern, but they employ 11 men. At the weekend, it was remarkable to hear them say that they were really worried in case they had to lay off any of those people because they had been very loyal. Their firm was clearly haemorrhaging cash, but they did not want to make anyone suffer who had shown them loyalty as they changed from being farmers and breeders and developed their new business.
The family owed 6,330 sheep the day before the foot and mouth outbreak. I am told that the sheep were worth £2.50 a kilo before the foot and mouth outbreak, but the family gets just £1.75 a kilo for the sheep now that they have been released from their incarceration and can take the beasts to market. That represents a cash loss of more

than £90,000 to that business. A bank manager would need to be very understanding to be happy that a business had lost that amount of money in such a short period. That money will be not recoverable unless the Government seriously consider compensation.
During the 10 days that it took for the family to get the all clear, when they were almost locked in, they had to bring in feed in bags because no one could take feed to the farm in large lorries. They keep sheep at a number of places in my constituency, and they had to take medical supplies to all those animals, some of which were suffering because they had been kept long beyond the day that they should have gone to market.
I commend the family on being very enterprising. Now that they have been allowed to move, they have started to take small herds of sheep from smaller farms directly to the local abattoir, and they are involved in the secondary business of moving the carcases to supermarkets. They are trying to recover some of their losses, but they are not getting anything like the money that they should. If we say that such consequential losses should be written off, I am sure that that would be the tip of the iceberg. All the other Members whose constituencies contain many sheep farms and other type of farms that are also frozen under the embargo will say that they are also losing out and that it will be a long time, if ever, before they recover.
My plea to the Government is that they treat businesses such as that run by the Stewart family as direct farming units and compensate them as direct farming units. If we do not do that, we are saying that it is better to have beasts with foot and mouth slaughtered than it is to do what the Stewart family did. They showed a real public concern. I understand that only one sheep was ill and that they had been to many markets, but not to the Longtown market in the borders. They called in the local vet, who did not know whether the sheep had foot and mouth—he did not know what was wrong. Therefore, he decided to call in the MAFF vet.
As soon as the MAFF vet stepped on to the farm and took a test, the two farms that the family use were embargoed and locked off for 10 days. The fact that the family did their public duty cost them money. It is therefore rather odd to hear from the media that the Government will not compensate them because their losses are consequential. I would say that they are direct losses.
Mr. Stewart asked me to pass on a few thoughts on the wider issues. The first relates to proper washing and disinfecting at markets. The Stewarts' haulage firm has full wash-bay facilities that are often used by other people hauling back and forward to the market in Edinburgh. Although it is probably a matter for the Scottish Parliament, and I do not know how it happened, I have been told that the wash-bay facilities have been taken out of one of the markets in Edinburgh because the sewage did not conform to the environmental health regulations. That seems rather strange. Instead of moving the market or upgrading the treatment facilities, the wash bay was removed. That does not suggest that the people who run the market have much concern for public health. I hope that that matter will be considered either here or in the Scottish Parliament.
Mr. Stewart feels strongly about the second point that he made. He said:
UK meat now has an image problem. The public perceives meat as being expensive because of recent problems. In real terms the lamb price being paid to farmers is 30 per cent. less than before.


Consumers need to be made aware that meat is good value for money, and it has been for a long time. The British public wants meat of the highest standards like Scottish lamb.
I am sure that he meant "like British lamb", and he adds:
They need to be made aware of the good value of lamb for their money.
If this does not happen we will have greater imports of inferior meat coming into the country than ever before. We must not forget that it was probably imported meat that caused the whole problem in the first place.
I heard my right hon. Friend the Minister say that we will crack down on the illegal importation of meat. Clearly, that is very welcome.
On the next point, I disagree with the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. Mr. Stewart said that the marketing structure had been extremely fragile for many small farmers and small hauliers, and the market had become far too dependent on large farming and hauling enterprises. Small farmers had to take the price given, and that probably would not sustain them. Mr. Stewart thought that he had found a niche market in which his small haulage firm could sustain a large number of small farmers. It would provide good value for money and he would give them good rates for haulage, lairage and so on. The outbreak has thrown the situation into chaos and he said that we must consider seriously how we can help small hauliers and small farms to sustain their contribution to agriculture. I agree that the smaller farmer seems to be more concerned about the quality of the product rather than the number of the beasts that they turn out.
I wish to quote the conclusion of my letter to my right hon. Friend the Minister, because I hope that the Government will take this point very seriously. I wrote:
I hope that the Government are planning to offer adequate compensation to farmers and livestock haulers such as the Stewarts of Drum farm, Bo'ness.
If we do not, we shall be seen as not having treated the whole farming industry in a proper manner.
I end my remarks with an ironic story. Mr. Stewart has a close friendship with another hauler who comes from the Cumbria area. His animals were found to have foot and mouth, and he is looking to buy a farm in Scotland when he receives his compensation. That is a crazy indictment of the way in which compensation is being paid.

Mr. Tom King: I welcome the debate, because the tone of the House has reflected the extreme gravity of the situation. As many Members have said, the problem does not affect just agriculture. Anyone who has read the front page of The Times today will have seen that the village of Porlock in my constituency reports a total absence of visitors and that there has been a collapse of all the businesses involved in tourism and with the wider Exmoor community
I have just received a report of a meeting in Porlock village hall today, where I shall be on Friday. Two hundred people in the village hall, the chairman and director of the national park, the local director of the National Trust and the chairman of the district council all recognised the extraordinary gravity of the situation.
I was concerned whether it was appropriate to table this motion, and I discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). However, it is

important to make a distinction. I believe that we should take a bipartisan approach to this serious and growing problem, but the Government should realise that some real problems need attention. That message must go right across government.
On an earlier occasion, I pointed out to the Minister that people did not know what foot and mouth looked like. I urged on him the need to advise people on how they could recognise the symptoms and he made a reasonable reply. He said that he understood my reasonable suggestion. Most of the people dealing with the problem have never seen foot and mouth, and I understand—I may be wrong—that Mr. Jim Scudamore is about the only person serving in MAFF who was involved in any significant way when the previous outbreak took place in 1967.
The great problem with such issues is the collective memory. No Minister has ministerial experience of dealing with foot and mouth; hardly anyone in MAFF or in Parliament has either. I have been here a long time—some people say too long—and I came to the House two years after the previous outbreak. Therefore, I hope that someone is keeping a careful diary of every event in this outbreak.
Although the Minister said that it was a good idea and that he had the matter in hand, it was nearly 10 days before the first pictures appeared showing what foot and mouth looked like. They were good because they showed what to look for in cattle, pigs and, in particular, sheep, which are liable to get blisters on the palate which makes the disease very difficult to recognise. I hope that those pictures will be stored and a stockpile will be kept so that they can be printed instantly should an outbreak occur again.
Today, we heard the Prime Minister commending burying in line. The 1968 report shows that that was the preferred method then. It warned against burning because of the risk of spreading the disease further. It is only now, in week five, that we seem to be returning to one of the strong recommendations of the 1968 committee. It is important that we learn lessons. Prompt slaughter is another of the 1968 recommendations. Discretion should be given to vets so that they can move faster. It is as though we have had to reinvent the wheel.
A further recommendation in the 1968 report was that we should bring in the Army earlier and provide assistance at an early stage. I have just received the excellent foot and mouth bulletin that is produced by the National Farmers Union in the south-west; I always ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk receives a copy. The bulletin says that Major Belinda Forsyth has now appeared on the scene in Devon. She is the commander
of the army team which has been brought in to assist with the logistics of the slaughter and disposal operation. She has 25 two person teams out in the field, organising contractors, coal, straw etc, so freeing up vets' time for more appropriate work.
That is jolly good. However, the bulletin adds:
What she does not have is access to military resources or manpower, and we remain to be convinced that resources in that regard are adequate.
No Minister should be embarrassed about asking for military assistance. In the Ministry of Defence document "Defence Policy 2001",
Military Aid to the Civil Community


is a justification for defence expenditure. I recall its being used during strikes by ambulance men. That is carefully provided for and part of peacetime security. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is entitled to expect a proper contribution.
The leader of my party implied in his speech two nights ago that a vast resource is available. I might have to disagree with him. The Royal Engineers are overstretched, so I am not sure how large the resource is. However, whatever is available should be used and, with great respect to the Minister, should be in place because such arrangements take time to organise. That was a recommendation of the 1968 inquiry.
That inquiry made another recommendation. It is obvious and, I think, starting to be accepted that it is impossible to manage the crisis from Whitehall or regional offices. One Member made a profoundly true remark when he said that the Ministry and all Government offices are institutionally urban. Calls to the regional office in Bristol are answered by terribly nice people who have probably never seen a farm in their lives. They have been recruited in Bristol to do a call centre job or whatever. The problem in the south-west is that the regional office in Bristol is going to close and has lost some of its key people. The Minister should worry about the wisdom of that closure, because suddenly that office is desperately needed.
Management of the crisis cannot be run from a regional office; there must be local discretion. I understand that we are to have a south-west supremo who will be based in Worcester. That will not serve Devon and Cornwall too well. Let me give the Minister an example of a pathetic case. People are ringing up because they have seen ewes in a village called Enmore. The west country has had terrible weather in the past few days, with 2 in of rain and snow on Exmoor. The animals are out and there are welfare considerations. The farmer has asked to move his sheep to new grazing which is 5 miles away, but an earnest, decent and conscientious person sitting in Bristol has read up the rules and told him that he cannot have a local movement order because that is limited to 5 km. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals turned up, looked at the ewes in the field in the village of Enmore and ordered them to be shot. They have been killed because someone in Bristol who has never been to my constituency looks at a map and cannot use his or her discretion. That cannot be right.
I understand the problems that Ministers face. I dealt with a few when I was in Government and recognise that the crisis has a complexity beyond most of the difficulties that I encountered. It cannot be controlled from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Nobel house or the regional offices. There must be local discretion.
Common sense must be applied. To make a further movement of livestock, a lorry has to be sent to a regional cleansing centre. When a farmer in my constituency gets a movement order and wants to move animals, the closest regional cleansing centre is in Exeter. A farmer from Weston Zoyland, which is 5 miles outside Bridgwater, would need to send his lorry to Exeter, bring it back to Weston Zoyland to load the animals and take it to a farm four miles away, before sending it back to Exeter to be

cleaned again. South Molton has a regional cleansing centre, but there has been an outbreak two miles from there.
On the market situation, a large pig producer in an infected area—thank God it has now been cleared—cannot move his pigs because the price has collapsed and the slaughterhouses will not take them. The other slaughterhouse in my constituency deals mainly in beef. Although it could be open, the flood of Irish beef has meant that it has laid off its people because it cannot sell beef at commercial prices.
The rising trend of outbreaks will continue for some time. Farms and the rural community as a whole are facing a crisis. Half our potential county councillors are farmers who are locked on their farms. For the Prime Minister to parrot what the Leader of the House said about holding the county council elections on 3 May sends a bad signal. It seems that the Government's best argument for not cancelling them is that people throughout the world would say, "Good Lord! The British have cancelled their county council elections."
If those elections go ahead and any Agriculture Minister goes near the hustings, there will be a riot. They know that it is their job to work. They will not be able to campaign because the Government have responsibilities at a high level to deal with the crisis. If we get a measure of control in force and the election and its related activities cause the disease to burst out again, I shudder to think what fate would face the Government, and they would deserve it. Although I understand the pressures, I hope that people realise that we are in a major crisis and it must be given top priority.

Mr. Mark Todd: If the debate is to have any value, it should focus on two issues: first, whether the Government's strategy is right and, secondly, whether that strategy's implementation is satisfactory. We have heard little about the strategy. The farming community accepts that the Government's objective to eliminate the disease as fast as possible and restore our country to its previous disease-free status is right. Our strategy is to identify each outbreak, trace it and eliminate the animals involved and their contacts. My only concern is that, although farmers are persuaded of that, the population at large are not sure that that is the only route to eliminate foot and mouth in this country.
I have just received a briefing from the Soil Association, which is promoting a meeting tomorrow to discuss the possibility of using vaccination around the areas with the highest concentration of the disease. I shall be surprised if that I proposal does not receive a good deal of support from people who are concerned about the welfare implications of the strategy and the likelihood of succeeding with the methods that we have chosen. Although my right hon. Friend touched on the possibility that there might be a plan B should the mechanism that we have identified fail, we need urgently to work out whether there is a fall-back strategy that could be implemented reasonably quickly.
The current strategy has my support. We have not established that it cannot work, although there is evidence that, in some parts of the country, resources are being overwhelmed by the demand placed on them. I have received many inquiries from people who are concerned


about the need for slaughter and the possibility of exploring alternatives. We should continue to keep an open mind and engage with the wider public in some of the complex issues that have not been played out. That is why I welcome the announcement of a briefing to journalists on Friday.
I want to concentrate on the effectiveness of our delivery of the current strategy. We need to put any comments into context. I listened with care to the remarks made by experienced Conservative Members. It is easy for us to criticise with hindsight, and there has been a tremendous number of references to 1967. It is clear that this outbreak of the disease was not identified early, which means that the virus had numerous routes of transmission that could not be shut off because it had already passed through them. There appears to be far more movement of stock, particularly of sheep, than in 1967, making spread of the disease rapid and exposure wide and not readily predictable.
The main carrier is our sheep flock, in which movements and locations of animals are far less traceable than in other species. Flocks and herds are far larger than in 1967, making the sheer scale of the outbreak far greater given the lack of early identification. This virus is particularly hard to spot in sheep, making early identification hard. Sheep are fanned extensively, making identification even more difficult in most conditions.
The outcome of those disadvantages is that the disease is far more widespread than in 1967. I share the gloom of Front-Bench Members about the prospect of an early end to the disease or even an early sight of its peak. We face a logistical nightmare. Instead of the relatively tight concentration of outbreaks in the mdlands in 1967, we have outbreaks the length and breadth of the country. That makes the concentration of scarce critical skills in the right places much harder to achieve than before.
When faced with such a problem it is normal, first, to define where those skills add most value and, wherever possible, to simplify the processes that skilled individuals have to follow and, secondly, ruthlessly to prioritise the tasks that they have to carry out. On that point, some of the comments about inexperience this time round have some resonance. Insufficient care has sometimes been taken to define clearly what vets do best and on what they should concentrate all their time. We have not used some of the key analytical and management skills early enough.
The critical tasks in disease control are identifying the disease, valuing the stock, killing the animals and disposing of the carcases. When risk analysis is also involved, movement control management requires analytical skills of a high order. We have had to increase the number of vets available, and identification remains a vital task for the farmer himself. The Government have done their best to recruit vets, but a lack of vets is not the major cause of our difficulty. Understandably, there have been difficulties with valuation, for which there should be simple, fair formulae. I was encouraged by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister said that we are moving towards that.
There is clearly a difficulty in getting qualified slaughtermen to the right places at the right time. As abattoirs are running well below capacity, it should surely be possible to bring those skills to the places where they are needed. Live animals pass on infections—as far as we can tell, often within hours. It is critical that the gap

between identification and slaughter be cut from days, which is how long it takes in some parts of the country. to hours.
Destruction of carcases is less critical. In disease control, the critical issue is whether the animal is alive. The presence of carcases is obviously distressing to farmers and others and runs the risk of spreading other kinds of disease, but the destruction of carcases is clearly a lesser priority than some of the other tasks facing the team confronting the disease. As other hon. Members have said, burial is less of an option than in 1967 simply because of the scale of the herds and flocks that we are dealing with. There is also a greater awareness of the potential for pollution from burials. In my area, where there have been seven outbreaks, I would be extremely doubtful of the value of burials on land that lies within the flood plain. Nevertheless, it is clear that burials should be made easier, and we urgently need to clarify what might be the Environment Agency's concerns.
Movement control is a complex process of risk analysis. The disease could be incubating at the time of movement and animals could be infected during that time, so any movement carries some risk. My constituents expect vigilance to prevent the further spread of the disease in the area. Many farmers have expressed concern to me about the complex process that must be undergone to acquire movement licences. That should be simplified for the convenience of farmers and, just as importantly, to reduce the work load on our hard-pressed public servants, who have better things to do than shunt bits of paper around the countryside.
Clear information is critical to the handling of this crisis. Although MAFF's website is excellent in many respects, it is not always up to date. It should include details of sites where a form C has been issued. People should be aware of the high risk attached to a vet's opinion that an outbreak is likely to occur. Farmers have had one high-quality mailing, and I myself received one. They now need much more detailed practical information on issues such as obtaining movement licences, access to the voluntary scheme that has been referred to, rules on disinfectant and restocking and aid packages for farmers considering alternative uses for their property. They need to know how agrimonetary compensation schemes will be firmed up, how exactly the schemes will work and within what timetable.
Initiatives are being taken in my area which are outside the Government's grasp. I commend the Derby Evening Telegraph campaign to aid farmers in the area. It works directly by fundraising and encouraging support for local rural enterprises that have been badly affected by foot and mouth because visitors and business partners have been discouraged from coming to see them. We need market support mechanisms to maintain the prices of the tradeable sector now and through recovery. I commend also the Minister's approach for examining the long-term issues. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made some intelligent remarks about the issues that we must confront.
Finally, we urgently need definition of the policies necessary to aid recovery. Many farmers face a complete reassessment of their life prospects, and it is entirely understandable that they may be considering retirement or an alternative future. We should help them in their time of need. Rural development plan resources are almost


certainly inadequate to meet that requirement. We should review the resources already set aside for schemes, which are available to fund alternatives to farming.
Farming and related rural enterprises have a great future in this country. I have said that before and I say it again—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that this is a very important debate and many hon. Members want to participate. If everyone takes their 12 minutes, there will be widespread disappointment.

Mr. Roger Gale: I shall endeavour to be brief, but I want to make a couple of points on behalf of the farmers of east Kent. The area is not recognised on the maps that one sees on television as being heavily affected by foot and mouth disease, but of course as in any other agricultural area, the knock-on effect is dramatic.
I want to talk about animal welfare on behalf of farmers because there seems to be a mood abroad that farmers do not care. The press have indicated that some of my local farmers are weeping for their bank balances, and one farmer this morning described that quite simply as "offensive crap". He is right to use exactly those words. Farmers care enormously for the welfare of their animals. They care because, as that farmer said, if one has built up a flock of Merinos over three generations and that flock is slaughtered, one is likely to cry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) referred to a field of lambs that the RSPCA ordered to be shot. The cameras do not go into those fields; they are not allowed to. The pictures that the public see on television are not the worst images, although piles of dead animals and palls of smoke are bad enough. The dying lambs; the ewes out in the cold; the pigs crammed into sheds unable to move; the cattle that cannot be moved—those are what ordinary people do not see in newspaper photographs or on television.
This morning, a farmer told me about his flock of sheep on waterlogged pasture, with no edible grass. He has only a fortnight's supply of feed and once that is gone, he will be cleaned out and those animals will starve. I am told that sheep are already starving on the Isle of Sheppey in Kent. There is no veterinary care either; even if there was, the farmers cannot afford it. The impact of all of that on farmers who care for their animals is simply terrifying; the impact on the animals themselves is just as bad.
I resented it when the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box this afternoon that thousands of sheep went to the abattoirs every week, and that just a fraction of the national herd was involved, so it did not matter. Of course it does. The knock-on effect extends beyond the animals that are culled and has an impact on every farm and every animal across the land. In the main, those animals cannot be moved into fresh pasture or shelter for lambing; they cannot be moved to feed in areas where there is no feed. The knock-on effect on those who supply wheat feed is just as bad because they cannot get their food to areas where the animals need it.
As I said, the cameras are not going in so people are not seeing that. However, today my farmers and the British Veterinary Association told me, "Cull and bury, and do it

fast." That is the message, but there is a backlog of animals waiting for slaughter and burial. In the Chamber last night, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment quoted Humpty Dumpty in "Alice Through the Looking-Glass":
'When I use a word .. it means what I choose it to mean'" — [Official Report, 20 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 215.]
Today's word seems to be logistics; that was the message from the Dispatch Box at Prime Minister's questions. The logistics team of soldiers—who, I am sure, are doing a good job—are going into the west country. However, people there do not need logistics; they need soldiers with machinery to go in and bury the dead animals.
I am angry for those people because a farmer and his wife with dead animals in their pasture are like every man and every woman with their dead dog or dead cat lying unburied on their lawn for days. That is what the Prime Minister is ignoring. The Minister of Agriculture is a decent, honourable and caring man, and his speech was very beguiling indeed. However, the bottom line is that we need not logistics but troops to do the job—the culling and burying. We do not need vets to do that. The BVA and the farmers want that done, and they want it done now.
I want my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to listen. My farmers' criticism of him and of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—not the Government—was not that we had called for a postponement of local elections in Cumbria and Devon, but that we had not done that nation wide. There is no recognition that this is a nationwide problem; it is about not just Cumbria and Devon, but every farm in the land. Do the Government seriously believe that they can go ahead and send out canvassers because advertising has already been booked and 3 May is in the diary, holding the countryside and the rural economy in contempt, when Ministers should be doing the job that they were elected to do and sort out the crisis? If they do, they will pay a terrible price. The farmers are paying a terrible price now, and it behoves all of us to recognise that.

Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) mentioned the need to look at strategy, and to consider whether it is right and whether it is working. I want to say a few things about both the short-term and long-term situation for my famers.
In Pembrokeshire, we have two main industries, agriculture and tourism, both of which have been hit heavily in the past few weeks. We have been fortunate in not being directly affected; ours is still a clean area. However, we have had a couple of blips and worrying incidents, when everyone held their breath. Basically, we export livestock, including cattle, to other areas, where they are fattened up and we have therefore kept clear of foot and mouth disease.
My farmers, with whom I have been regular contact since the outbreak started, wanted me, first, to tell the Minister how grateful they are that he is listening to what they have to say, and is being open about the advice that he is getting. That is a major concern for my farmers, especially bearing in mind the historical record. However, I shall not go into that now, because farmers also tell me that they are desperate that the issue should not become


political in any way. They are grateful for the cross-party approach to the issue, which is far too important to make cheap political points on the back of the United Kingdom's rural economy. That is the other prime message that my farmers in Pembrokeshire would want to give the House.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) in praising the role of Ben Gill, who has shown great courage in his approach to the problem. He, too, is looking to both the long term and the short term, even when it has been difficult for some of his members to cope with that.
Although we must keep the problem clear of party political issues, we cannot ignore a couple of small points arising from past decisions. First, there is a shortage of vets because of the decimation over 10 years of the state veterinary service. Secondly—and this relates to my Pembrokeshire farmers—another problem arose from the restrictions imposed after the BSE crsis.

Mr. Damian Green: rose—

Mrs. Lawrence: I see the Opposition spokesman gesticulating. I hope that he will agree with what I am going to say, especially since his Government, regrettably, were responsible for those measures.

Mr. Green: Two minutes ago, the hon. Lady said that farmers in her constituency did not want the problem to be treated with cheap political points. She is now making cheap political points.

Mrs. Lawrence: I am terribly sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks that raising regulations that had to be introduced because of BSE is a cheap political point. Those regulations are having a major impact on livestock farmers in my area. The over-30-months scheme, for example, is having an impact, along with movement restrictions. My farmers in Pembrokeshire are responsible people and could, if they wished, fatten their livestock on waste vegetable matter, as happens in other areas. They choose not to because they are responsible people who keep their animals on grass until the last minute and send them to market before the 30-month limit. As a result of the foot and mouth outbreak coming on top of the BSE restrictions, they must face the fact that they simply get the sum, under the OTMS, for cattle for which they would normally get market value.
Since the end of February, I have argued in the House that affected farmers should be classed as eligible for direct, rather than consequential, compensation. As a result of the regulations, their cattle are as condemned, just as they would be if they had FMD. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) chooses to ignore that fact.
Several concerns that I expressed in our debate on 5 March have now been addressed. I spoke about small-scale movement of livestock within holdings, so I was pleased to hear about provision for further movement and for licensing longer journeys in clean areas. That provision will be helpful in my constituency.
My local branch of the National Farmers Union has spoken to me about the role of the Army. It recently said, "Jackie, tell the Minister that we are desperately concerned. We want everybody to pull together, including

the Army, but we want them to be used appropriately." The Army could, for example, be put in charge of ensuring that proper disinfection systems are up and running for movements over long distances. It certainly has the necessary manpower for such tasks. The NFU has significant concerns, which I am sure were the basis of the comments that my right hon. Friend the Minister made earlier.
I should like to make a quick point about the broader scene with regard to farming business and the wider rural economy. A couple of weeks ago, I rang the Samaritans in my area to find out how much more their services were being used. Clearly, some people are desperate about facing the future with so much uncertainty. I was told that not only in Pembrokeshire, but in the area represented by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and in Carmarthenshire, a shortage of funding means that the Samaritans in those areas can offer a counselling service only during certain hours of the day. For the rest of the time, the service has to be switched to Swansea, an urban centre that is some 70 miles away. I ask local authorities throughout Wales and the United Kingdom to consider giving stronger support to organisations such as the Samaritans, as they are very useful in helping people to cope with difficult circumstances. They are especially important in respect of farming, as so many farmers lead extremely isolated existences.
I have already mentioned the OTMS. Farmers have told me that a 28-day movement restriction is needed for animals that have just been purchased at market. It has been suggested that they should stay in one settlement before being moved again, so that any disease can manifest itself within those 28 days. I was sent an article from Farming News by Mr. William George, a livestock farmer in Camrose in my constituency. He pointed out the final paragraph of the article, which states:
The solution being mooted … is some form of movement control. A limit to the frequency of stock movement.
It would mean more red tape and checks, but could have made isolating this terrible FMD outbreak much easier.
The article deals with a matter of growing concern among people in Pembrokeshire.
We have also read in the newspapers recently about farmers who have been responsible enough to take out insurance to cover them for of foot and mouth losses and whose policies have come up for renewal during the outbreak. Apparently, many farmers have been refused renewal by the insurance companies, which are happy to take money when there is no FMD, but whose attitude changes the minute that it appears on the scene. They are behaving immorally by not fulfilling their commitments to allow farmers to renew their policies. Will the Government please consider introducing a proper, Government-based insurance scheme that will cover all farmers in respect of any such problems in future?
My farmers also continually express concerns about imports. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that he would look into illegal imports and consider what action needs to be taken on them. He also gave an assurance that he would look into regulation regarding pig swill. It is an absolute scandal that £5,000 is the maximum fine for someone who is shown to have broken the rules by feeding unsterilised pig swill, when, if feeding unsterilised swill is shown to be the cause of the disease, it will have cost the British economy £9 billion.
I have spoken for only nine minutes, but I am aware that other hon. Members want to raise constituency issues. I should like to speak about one further concern among my farmers in Pembrokeshire. They are decent, honest people who are trying to make a living from the land. They have been most anxious about reports published recently in the national media about movements arising from so-called sheep leasing, allegedly used to beat quotas; there have also been reports of some farmers moving animals closer to sources of infection. Of course, anxieties have also been expressed about illegal movements in general. My farmers are anxious for the Government to take quick and efficient action if there proves to be any substance to those allegations. They fear that unless such action is taken, illegal activities could wrongly influence people's attitudes towards them, as they are honest, decent people.

Sir Robert Smith: I shall try to follow the example of the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) and keep my remarks short.
Like many rural MPs, I have been approached by many farmers who are very worried about the outbreak. On one occasion, two farmers' wives "hijacked" me into their car as I walked down the street. They wanted to press the concerns that I hope to get on the record now. Obviously, the Minister of State may not be able to address all my points; if so, I hope that MAFF will consider the details and write to me.
I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who made a general case about all farmers and the economic plight that they are suffering, whether or not they are directly affected by the disease. I want also to associate myself with comments made by other hon. Members about the wider community.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) rightly raised the issue of consequential costs, which the Government will have to confront. We are discussing a major crisis that has hit an industry that was already on its knees, and which was blighted by so many other problems that it simply could not take on board the consequential losses of the outbreak. I join in expressing sympathy for people in the area represented by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and in neighbouring constituencies. Many of them have been devastated by the disease, and I thank him for expressing the wish that the rest of us will not face such serious problems.
I am disappointed that even when Ministers say that welfare movements will be improved, it takes time for such changes to be made. Once the hope has been prompted that a measure will be introduced to help in dealing with the crisis, it must be delivered as quickly as possible if farmers' morale is to be kept up. They sit at home and see the issues being reported, but then find that they are not necessarily arriving on the ground.
Many people are anxious about the quality of imports and have asked about their control and inspection. Labelling is a related concern. It is extremely disappointing for farmers to hear about carcases entering

the country to be butchered here and then turn up as British meat in the supermarket, especially when they have met far higher quality standards than the producers of that imported meat and have paid proper attention to disease and to human health.
If licensed movement is to work for the farmers, proper capacity is required in the abattoirs. Farmers have told me about their worry that the imports of foreign meat that arrived during the complete close-down have reduced the available capacity to make such licensed movement work. What are the Government doing to monitor the abattoirs' capacity and their ability to provide an outlet at the other end of the process? If such measures are to relieve farmers' problems, abattoirs must be able to process the stock.
Abattoirs have raised with me another serious concern. They are worried about how long they will have to close down for if they open up to take licensed movements but end up receiving infected animals. The risk of closing down for a month—the time scale applied for many closures—and suffering the consequent damage is not one that they are willing to take. That risk is especially great with regard to sheep whose symptoms are less obvious.
I heard on the phone recently about worries in respect of the fact that some flocks have been traced back to the market very late in the process. Farmers who are trying to protect their herds want reassurance that information on where every movement has ended up is now out in the open. They do not want suddenly to find that a nearby flock carries a high risk and that they have not been able to take extra precautions.
Let us consider the wider lessons and the way in which we can deal with some the problems of movement. One farmer made the point that if we are going to create producer co-operatives, reduce movements and introduce electronic auctions, farmers need to have more confidence in the grading at abattoirs. Any sizeable producer co-operative will have to use more than one abattoir. Such producers will not get a choice of abattoirs, but if they opt out of the co-operative, they can choose the abattoir where the grading is most sympathetic to the supplier. I have raised that point with Ministers and the Meat and Livestock Commission.
Farmers have made the valid point that if they have no confidence in the grading system, they will not happily auction animals electronically to any old abattoir for a price that can be downgraded when the animals arrive. For farmers to reduce movements and ensure that the system is working efficiently, they must have confidence in the grading system.
I want to emphasise the strain on those farmers who are not yet directly affected. That is a problem throughout the country. It is vital that we learn lessons from the crisis. Clearly, most of MAFF's energy must be directed at containing and controlling the outbreak. However, it must also try to learn how to avoid a recurrence. We cannot go through such a crisis again. If the original trigger is not identified, fully understood and placed on the record as soon as possible, we cannot be confident that we will have the necessary precautions for avoiding a recurrence.
I stress to the media the importance of balance. It is difficult for them to deal with a continuing crisis that takes time to develop, because they need a new story or angle all the time. The fire-break strategy caused a media feeding frenzy about the slaughter of healthy animals. An


outbreak of any disease on a farm means that all animals on the farm are slaughtered. Some may be healthy at the time, but all animals must be slaughtered to contain the disease. The fire-break strategy is simply an extension of that, because the disease is not easily contained or easily detectable. Rather than referring to the slaughter of healthy animals, the media should use the phrase "apparently healthy". The strategy is being used to remove infectivity from the flock.
I especially remember Kevin Bouquet revealing the journalist's lack of perspective when he nearly began a report by saying, "They are about to murder"—before correcting himself and using the word "slaughter". There must be perspective in reporting the outbreak if the wider public are to understand and embrace the strategy.
Obviously, I cannot meet farmers groups now. However, in meetings between representatives of NFU branches, Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament, and with individual farmers, I have been impressed by the energy with which they try to understand the wider issues that affect their industry and the complexities that surround them. Often, when I am on a platform and one farmer confronts me with a question that is almost impossible to answer, another mentions the complex reason for a certain regulation, for instance, before I have a chance to try to reply.
Farmers live and breathe their industry. Farming is not a nine-to-five job; it takes over farmers' lives. The crisis deeply affects them and their families. The nature of the disease controls means that their natural support networks are not there. I hope that the wider community understands how seriously they are affected, and that the Government recognise the importance of tackling the crisis, and of taking every possible measure to contain it now. I urge them on in their actions. They must accept some of the anxieties about implementation and the need to take advice from the Army. They must take their action forward because the disease must be tackled quickly, efficiently and effectively if the strain is to be removed from all our farmers and the wider community.

Mr. Huw Edwards: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith), who speaks with great authority about the experience in Scotland, and to follow other hon. Members who have spoken with passion about the serious predicament that faces the country. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) told especially disturbing stories and spoke very well.
I did not expect to attend a debate in the House today, because I had made plans to be in my constituency to share a platform with the Archbishop of Wales. I regret that I am not able to do that, but I am sure that people will appreciate the necessity of my being here to speak on behalf of the farmers of Monmouthshire.
Until last Friday, we had had a few scares, but no outbreaks in Monmouthshire. Last Friday, the first case was confirmed on a small farm in Grosmont near the Hereford border. The outbreak in Llancloudy in Herefordshire meant that movement across much of Monmouthshire was restricted. The case in Grosmont sent a shudder through Monmouthshire farmers, who expressed to me the anxieties that I shall outline.
Although the outbreak in Grosmont was confirmed on Friday, the stock was not slaughtered until Monday. I took that up with the Ministry vet in Cardiff, who informed me that the infected stock were killed over the weekend, but local farmers dispute that. I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to make inquiries at the National Assembly for Wales about that.
Neighbouring farmers say that they were not formally notified of the case and they believe that communications have not been as good as Ministers said they ought to be. There has been a suspect case at the neighbouring farm of Mr. David Probert, who was chairman of the Monmouthshire branch of the National Farmers Union until a couple of years ago. He shot the suspect sheep immediately and put them in bags. He is now awaiting, with some trepidation, confirmation of an outbreak. I have discussed those matters with Mr. David Thomas, the Ministry vet in Cardiff, and I appreciate his help, advice and willingness to speak to local farmers.
I recently spoke to a pig farmer in my constituency. We have few pig farms in Monmouthshire, but Mr. Whittal-Williams informed me that there are 3,000 pigs currently on his farm. At this stage, he would normally have only 2,000. The extra pigs are overweight and growing rapidly. They cannot be housed adequately, they are fighting each other and some have even fallen into the slurry pit and drowned. That is an especially disturbing animal welfare case. Mr. Whittal-Williams feels incredibly frustrated that he cannot either get the pigs to abattoirs, which will not take them anyway, or get them destroyed on animal welfare grounds and be compensated. I welcome the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that animal welfare considerations for slaughtering such pigs will be in force as quickly as possible.
In recent discussions in my constituency with the NFU and the Farmers Union of Wales representatives expressed anxiety about the welfare of sheep in Monmouthshire, about the need to move lambing ewes indoors, and about farms that are divided by the restricted area boundary. Farmers cannot bring their sheep from one part of the farm to another because the boundary runs through it. They also want to be able to bring home sheep that are on tack, so I am glad that licences are available for that. I am grateful for the representations that farmers have made to me and for being able to convey them to Ministers.
Farmers have expressed anxiety about dealers who buy and sell livestock around the country and put small groups of livestock together. As my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) said, a 28-day restriction on livestock movement could help to prevent such outbreaks.
Farmers have also expressed frustration over the role allocated to the Army and hon. Members have spoken of the need to involve the Royal Engineers. I have in my constituency the senior Territorial Army regiment in the country: the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers. They go out on exercises every month.

Mr. James Gray: I have heard the hon. Gentleman say that before. The senior Territorial


Army regiment in Britain is, of course, the Honourable Artillery Company, which is 200 years older than the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers.

Mr. Edwards: Thank you, Jamest—that was really useful. The hon. Gentleman has intervened on me on that point three or four times, and I still believe that I am absolutely correct. The regiment that the hon. Gentleman represents is the oldest, whereas the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers is the senior regiment. I hope that my point has been made.
Farmers with pedigree herds are also concerned that, if the disease spreads, they will have their entire herds wiped out after building them up for many years. The previous owners of their farms, perhaps their fathers, often helped to build up such herds, and it would be a tremendous tragedy if they were to be lost completely.
I am grateful for the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has dealt with the crisis. As I said in the House a week or so ago, the farmers of Monmouthshire do not often compliment Agriculture Ministers. I have represented them when there has been a Conservative Agriculture Minister, as I now represent them when there is a Labour one, and there is a feeling that my right hon. Friend has handled the crisis rationally and soundly. That is not to say that they have not been concerned about some aspects of the crisis and how it has been dealt with. Of course, there has been concern about the delays in having sheep and other livestock identified and slaughtered.
I am grateful that my right hon. Friend has made available the agrimonetary compensation. It is important to reiterate that this Government have devoted more than £600,000 to agrimonetary compensation, whereas the previous Government did not devote one penny to it. Agrimonetary compensation is not compensation for foot and mouth, but it is right that it has been brought in as quickly as possible to provide an important mitigating form of support.
The tourist industry in my constituency is very important. My constituency includes the beautiful Wye valley, and the Llanthony valley, of which many people are unaware. I hope that, when the time is right, they will be able to visit it. In those tourist areas, market towns such as Monmouth, Chepstow, Abergavenny and Usk have all been affected by people's sense of responsibility that they ought not to travel into rural parts of the country. Perhaps that feeling is genuinely felt, but it is somewhat misguided. We have so many attractive pubs, restaurants and hotels, probably all of which have been affected in one way or another by the lack of custom resulting from the restrictions.
I have been speaking to the proprietors of the Crown hotel at Whitebrook in my constituency. It is a beautiful small hotel with an equally beautiful restaurant, which has suffered quite considerably. I know that the proprietors appreciated the measures that the Minister for the Environment announced yesterday. Those announcements went further than many people in the tourist trade had anticipated, and I am sure that those people are grateful for that and will look forward to the introduction of any future measures.
The farming community has been subject to a number of crises in the past five to 10 years, and now it is facing another crisis. I hope that we can all work together to

support those in tha community who have worked with great resolution. I feel the greatest sympathy for them, but they need much more than sympathy and I hope that we can work together to bring about a resolution to this crisis.

Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and  express my commiserations to him and his farmers. Mie was the first constituency in which the fires started to brn, and I know exactly what he must be going through. I is very difficult talking to farmers whose livelihoods ae being destroyed before their eyes. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) talked about Members of Parliament all being social workers now, and that is indeed the case. We are spending a lot of time with our farmers, trying to solve various problems.
I am pleased to see the Minister of State on the Front Bench. It would be churlish of me not to thank her for her office's help when I had a problem earlier last week with getting some sheep moved to Brindles farm in my constituency from the neighbouring fields. The farm is well outside the 3 km net, and was working within the regulations, but people on the ground were unwilling to take the necessary decision. Had it not been for the kind intervention of the right hon. Lady's office, that movement would not have happened, which would have led to the unnecessary deaths of perfectly healthy sheep.
That case illustrates the problem that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) mentioned, which is that people are unwilling to take decisions. It is absurd that a Member of Parliament has to ring the Minister of State's office to arrange for a few sheep to be pushed through a hole in a hedge in a field in Essex. There is a lesson to be learned from that.
I also need to thank the right hon. Lady for the decision to speed up the opening of the abattoir in my constituency in which the foot and mouth outbreak was first diagnosed. I went round the abattoir last Friday with the owner, looking at the preparations for reopening, and I was struck by the necessity of getting that abattoir back into operation. It was strategically important for the pig industry of the United Kingdom, and it will help enormously in dealing with the problems from which that industry is suffering. It is a good thing that it is going to reopen, particularly as it ensured, by being so vigilant, that the foot and mouth outbreak was identified so early.
One of the more chilling aspects of the Minister of Agriculture's statement this afternoon was his saying that the crisis—far from being over and far from being under control—is going to get much worse, and that the number of cases, and the number of herds affected, is going to rise. The disease is undoubtedly going to spread. We are experiencing exactly the same sort of thing that we did in 1967. This is a peculiar disease, because it will jump over a farm, missing it completely, and occur in another one. It will then jump again, quite wildly, across the county.
My worry is that, while we are trying to get this outbreak, this epidemic, this great crisis under control, we now have to start to think about what is going to be left. I believe that we need a rescue package. We have gone beyond talking about compensation now. We have gone beyond haggling over individual carcases. We are talking about what is going to be left, what kind of British agriculture will exist, and what kind of support services there will be, in terms of abattoirs and haulage services.
Gaining control over this dreadful disease should not blind us to coming up with a rescue package. After all, in one small section of the pig industry, 800 tonnes of sow carcases are being processed every week. Something is happening to those pigs that are not going to slaughter. We know the effects and we have to ensure that, as we start to bring the industry together, there is some means left by which the industry can survive.
Many problems that farmers face, especially the fall in farm incomes, have been described today, most notably by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). About three weeks before the outbreak, I met about 16 farmers who are well established in my constituency to discuss the crisis in the industry. They said that few of their children want to take over their farms and many have gone into other businesses. A young farmer who graduated from Reading university about three years ago told me that only two of his class are active in agriculture. People have moved into jobs elsewhere.
Farmers tell me that they are simply overstaffed. Many are keeping people on because of the commitment that they feel towards their employees, but the prospect of their being able to retain staff is beginning to diminish as the crisis deepens. Farmers quote a long list of burdens that have been placed on them by the Government and local government, such as having to collect taxes, having to distribute benefits, having to fill in forms and having to duplicate paperwork for different Departments.
Yesterday, I was surprised by the Minister for the Environment's comments on the climate change levy. He said, "Don't worry about the climate change levy. It will not really affect farms." He added that
overwhelmingly, it will be larger and non-rural businesses that will certainly have liabilities under the levy." —[Official Report, 20 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 195.]
I am sure that that is absolutely right. More urban businesses will be involved, but rural businesses will also be affected by the levy. Significantly, my farmers raised the climate change levy with me and  have also received telephone calls about it since the outbreak.
Even if the Minister for the Environment is right about the long-term benefits that the levy will achieve, surely it makes sense to ensure that farmers who are facing up to these great difficulties are relieved of that problem. Why place additional burdens on farmers at this most difficult time?
Today, I talked to an old friend who is a hill farmer in the Pennines, where I used to live. His farm and his area are fortunately free of foot and mouth, but he wanted me to tell the House that if foot and mouth strikes, he will give up. That applies not only to him but to the majority of his neighbours. Restocking simply would not be worth while—he could not afford to restock—and if farmers go out of business, the nature of the Pennine foothills will change for ever.
May I make a suggestion to the Minister about how to get the pig industry back in operation when the crisis passes? East Anglia, for example, has been hit badly because it has suffered from classical swine fever, so we must recognise what has happened to that industry. When foot and mouth descended on us, pigmeat imports increased enormously, but some supermarkets underestimated consumers and put on the market joints that people simply did not want. The net result was the complete collapse in the price of pigmeat.
To retrieve the position, we need to go with the market and the way it operates. We must support infrastructure and we should encourage the private commercial storage of pigmeat by giving aid to abattoirs. Such a system could operate only if it went with the general trend: modern consumers want meat traceability. Encouraging private storage of meat by commercial abattoirs would enable us, in time, to offer a guarantee that such pork came from a farm free of foot and mouth. That would be a better way in which to stabilise quality in the market after the crisis and I hope that the Minister will consider ways to achieve that which flow with the general mood of market.
I have one message to pass on from my farmers: the crisis is about respect. They expect the Government to respect the countryside. Ministers talk about people going to the countryside, but that runs contrary to what they know is right in respect of ensuring that the outbreak does not spread. When they talk about tourism, my farmers say that what they are really talking about is the enormous amount that the Labour party has spent on posters and its publicity campaign.
The signal for which the outside world does not look is a Labour candidate wandering up the drive in a borrowed Barbour and a red rosette. That is not what will end the crisis.

Mr. David Drew: When I last spoke in a debate on this subject, my speech preceded that of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). He made some nice remarks about me, and until the last minute of his speech tonight, I had intended to make some nice remarks about him. I could go along with nearly all he said during the first 11 minutes, but that last minute contained remarks that could be described as a little far-fetched.
This has been a sombre debate, as indeed it needed to be. It has also been an honest debate. However, some of us become riled by accusations based on the idea of town versus country. Many of us represent what I would describe as semi-rural areas, which contain urban centres in the form of market towns but which also feature a rural hinterland in the villages and the surrounding land, most of which is farmland.
At times such as this, it behoves everyone to try to bring people together. I have been genuinely impressed by some sharing of ideas about strategy and by the attempts of politicians on both sides of the divide to find some hope in what has been happening. There is no case for politicking: many people look to this place for leadership, and they will not find it if we are seen to be bickering and point scoring.
We are going through an emotional time, and we have heard some moving speeches. I pay special tribute to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), whose constituencies are at the centre of the catastrophe.
We are, in fact, talking about three separate parts of the agricultural environment. There are the hot spots—Cumbria, Dumfries and Galloway, and Devon. There are a number of other areas in which infectivity is present, and must be dealt with through a range of measures. Then there is the rest of the country, which may have experienced the odd case but to which we are trying to


restore some normality. We are, however, sharing common worries and calling together for the cohesive action that is needed.
If there is any lesson that we can learn from today's debate, it is this. It is not necessarily the case that mistakes have been made, but there have been problems in the way in which policies have evolved, and in the way in which decisions were—or should have been—made.
We should recognise, following what was said by my right hon. Friend the Minister, that more bad news seems likely, but as the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar sensibly said, the disease is difficult to predict. There have been two outbreaks in my constituency, and there is no rhyme or reason as to why those holdings suffered and others have not. Pray God the others will not suffer, but there is a measure of uncertainty about how the disease begins to take hold, which makes coming up with solutions that much more difficult—if, that is, we are to avoid the most drastic solution, which is the "clean ring", or proactive culling.
There is much that we should try to do in regard to the science of the problem. Some of that is for the future, but we need to use some science today to learn how to discover further outbreaks as quickly as possible, to implement a slaughter policy, and—this seems to be, in many respects, the most difficult aspect—to dispose of animals in the right way.
Alongside the science of dealing with the disease are all the usual problems over money and compensation. It may be of secondary importance, but we fool ourselves if we regard it as being of no importance. Unfortunately, for all sorts of reasons, people haggle.
As I said in an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), there was some criticism of the work of valuers in the other place. I have talked to valuers and they have fiercely defended their position and the way in which they work under pressure. They seem to be paid more than vets from private practice, and perhaps that needs to be changed, but we need all those people in place.
It is not a question of MAFF doing all the work, with the help of the Army and other public servants. We are indebted to the private service and must try to make that relationship work as well as it can. When I talk about the public service, it is important to remember local government, as I have tried to do whenever I have spoken, because it has done an amazing amount of good work.
I want to talk about agriculture because that is the issue that most affects me and we should, I suppose, concentrate on it, but like every other hon. Member in an affected area where there is infectivity, I know that other parts of our environment and the context in which people live their lives are being drastically affected. I have in my constituency the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust centre at Slimbridge, which for the past two weeks has been closed. An organisation that relies almost entirely on people coming through the door—I accept that there is some charitable giving on top of that—is day after day incapable of opening. It has staff with whom it does not know what to do. Should it get them to do some tidying up or research, or should it lay them off? Those are the dramatic, drastic decisions that people face in those areas.
I am indebted to MAFF because it has helpfully clarified the position with regard to whether such organisations should be open or closed. That makes a lot of difference in respect not only of loss of revenue in the immediate future, but of possible insurance claims and of how to re-gear. Businesses based around other wildlife face a tricky transitional period in getting the public back into their facilities again. It will perhaps not be as tricky as restocking will be for our farmers, but it is a difficult exercise that must be thought through carefully. People will need monetary help as well as advice on how to do it.
Other hon. Members have spent some time going through the antecedents of the disease. I can make suppositions only on the basis of what we appear to know about where it came from, the implications of that and the way in which it has spread throughout the country. My hon. Friends the Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) and for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) both talked about the movement of animals throughout the country. We need to consider carefully whether those movements are excessive and whether we should demand that animals stay in situ for longer.
Whether one thinks that that was a causal feature or an effect, the nature of the movement of sheep in particular has added to the seriousness of the outbreaks. I do not mind saying that we must question at least some of the ways in which dealers operate. Perhaps they feel that they are in the frame to take too much of the blame. They will in due course have the opportunity, through the media and in other ways, to defend their position.
From talking to farmers—dealers are, in their own way, farmers—I know that there is some question about whether we have gone too far in allowing such movement to take place. That leads us to questions about the food chain. Clearly, sheep are not traceable in the way that cattle and pigs are. More particularly, we must look at the centralisation of the food chain and how we move animals nationally and internationally. Some animals were exported to France and had to be slaughtered.
I want to look forward. We know the difficulties of the current situation and we feel great sorrow for those who are affected and in the depths of despair. However, we will see the problem through and get on top of foot and mouth. In so doing, we must recognise that, in reconstructing the industry, we must learn some lessons. There may be some value in re-engineering a localised food chain that locks into what the consumer seems to want. That is not a call for a drastically different food chain, but one that is in tune with what the customer wants. That will involve different production and distribution methods, which cannot come too soon.
We must examine how MAFF has performed. There seems to be agreement across the House that it has handled the basic strategy well, but there are points of detail, particularly in the hot spots. I heard what was said by hon. Members from Cumbria, where things are very difficult. There is an issue about the command-and-control structure and the way in which MAFF can give information. We can learn from that and get on top of the disease. We must look outwards and onwards, as that is what our farmers want at this time.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise some matters of great importance to my constituents. We have cases of foot and


mouth and, as in many other constituencies, the farming community is on tenterhooks. The pressure on farms—particularly the small family farms in my constituency, which is a livestock area—is enormous. I hope that, as the days go by, we will hear about the ways in which the Government are addressing the issues raised tonight and on earlier dates by hon. Members because the present situation needs to be changed.
In my area, slaughtered animals have been left in fields for up to a week before removal. However, it is not just that they lie in the fields. They are attacked by vermin, and that is a matter of great concern in terms of the spreading of the disease. Of course, moving animals that have been lying in that condition for a week is a very unpleasant task. Anyone who knows what happens to an animal post mortem will know that. There is also an added risk in terms of what is spread when the animals are moved.
Ministers have heard pleas from both sides of the House. It is essential that animals be disposed of immediately they are slaughtered. The plan must be there and put into action. Members on both sides have called for the Army to be more actively involved. In Devon, it has been deployed this week, but not for the purpose of overseeing the removal and disposal of animal carcases.
I have heard the arguments against burial on farms. Clearly, there are some farms and parts of farms where burial would be highly inappropriate, particularly because of leaching, contamination and the level of the water table. However, farmers know their land, and I believe that carcases could be disposed of on-farm in many cases. In that way, we could speed up the system and allow vets to be released to do other work. That would make a significant difference, as the task of overseeing the disposal of animals could well be left to the armed forces.
The Minister of Agriculture said that the problem was likely to get worse. The figures in my area show that it is getting worse every day. We must therefore make big changes in how we tackle the slaughter of animals and the disposal of carcases.
I intervened on the Minister earlier about a case in my constituency involving the welfare of pigs, and I was grateful for his response. People in this country say that they care about animal welfare, but they would be appalled if they could see some of the critical problems on-farm. The pig industry especially is in great distress, as animals are growing in size and are densely stocked. On welfare grounds, therefore, something must be done to help pig herds.
The scheme introduced last Thursday has a proper structure. Matters to do with compensation remain to be discussed, but I reiterate a plea that I have made before: will the Ministry please allow animals to be slaughtered on veterinary certification alone? We could then deal with the rest of the bureaucracy and the payments afterwards. Such an approach is justified on welfare grounds, and it would mean that we could start to sort out some of the pig industry's problems tomorrow.
I want to pay tribute to Mrs. Jean Turnbull of the National Pig Association. Her telephone number has been circulated around the country, so that pig farmers undergoing a great deal of stress and worry can ring her, day or night. She has also given out her mobile number for the same reason. All hon. Members who have had to deal with some distressing cases in the past two weeks

will have appreciated the fact that people like Jean Turnbull have offered their support in helping to talk people through their problems.
We should not underestimate the stress that the farming community is going through. It is tragic and difficult for people to come to terms with the slaughter of their animals, but hon. Members from all parties have noted that the problem is not confined to them. Families waiting to see whether they are going to be the next to suffer are also under stress. For instance, a lady telephoned in the morning a week ago last Sunday as I was peeling the vegetables, saying that she just had to talk to someone. That illustrates the stress that families are going through.
The consequence of the outbreak for many people will be that they will lose their farms. Tenant farmers in my constituency tell me that they will have nothing if they lose all their stock. Many of them are close to retirement, and do not have the years in front of them in which they can rebuild. Even if they were given the money tomorrow, the experience has knocked the stuffing out of people of that older generation. I therefore urge the Minister of State to look at what can be done to help those who want to leave farming, and to give hope to the younger generation who will have to face the challenge of restocking and starting again under the most severe of circumstances.
It will be a long time before farms can be restocked. People's financial problems arising from the loss of stock will be exacerbated by the fact that there will be a long lead time before they can restock and get going again.
All hon. Members pray that the outbreak ends as soon as possible, but the reality is that it will not just disappear. The problem will remain for some months to come. Even when the last case has been dealt with, there will be a long period of restructuring and reorganisation before farms can get back into business.
I also ask the Minister of State to address the situation, particularly in the west country, where there are animals that could be slaughtered for the food chain now. I was encouraged to hear the figures on how the amount of meat in various species is increasing in terms of its distribution through the food chain.
I am particularly concerned about the sheep industry and about getting more sheep into the food chain. This is the time of year when thousands of animals, known in the west country as hoggets, are ready for the table. They are about a year old and have been fattened up. We need those animals to come to slaughter and to enter the food chain. Has the Ministry considered whether there may be a case for intervention if the meat from animals that are slaughtered for the food chain is not immediately taken into the food chain? That would give farmers some hope.
Some farmers are having difficulty feeding their stock. Mr. Lee, in Sandford in my constituency, has a feed bill of £4,000 a week, but no income. Mr. Hill, who farms a smaller farm in Ashley, has a feed bill of £1,000 a week, but no income. Farmers are extremely worried about how they will continue to feed their animals. Has MAFF considered contingency arrangements for emergency feedstuffs when the feed runs out, as it certainly will for some of my farmers in the next couple of weeks? They will not be able to buy feed for their animals because they cannot pay for it, which is very distressing.
Much has been said about bureaucracy. I know only too well how difficult it is to get wheels turning as quickly as one would like on occasions. However, a little more


flexibility would help. In my constituency, for example, there is a very small, minor country road going through a farm. It is between Uplowman village and Stag Mill. The local villagers have, by consent, decided not to use the road through the farm because there is an alternative lane that can easily be used to bypass it. They do not want to put the farm at risk. The "road closed" signs put up by the villagers were taken down by the authorities, and they were told that they would be fined if they did it again. That is surely bureaucratic nonsense.
I have not phoned the Minister's office about the matter because I know that she has a lot of very difficult cases to deal with and that a lot of people are ringing her. However, where common sense prevails in a local community whose members want to protect the local farm, surely that common sense can be respected, without the need for an official to take the signs down. After all, it will not inconvenience anybody. That is an indication of the enormous concern and respect felt in the rural community for farms. The problem affects the whole countryside.
We have heard much this week about alternative industries in the rural areas connected with farming—perhaps not the most obvious ones—that are affected. I ask the Minister of State, as many hon. Members have tonight, to clarify what is meant by access to the countryside. I confess that I would be hard-pressed to advise a constituent what it really means. It is not sufficient to say that people should not go near grazing animals in fields. We all know that the disease can be transmitted on the wheels of vehicles and by people. Although human beings are not affected by the disease, they can carry it, so there is a certain nervousness in rural communities, which understand these things, about what is meant by access to the countryside.
A lady in my constituency has just invested her life savings in a fishing tackle shop, yet people cannot go out into the countryside to fish—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, so I ask Members to be brief so that as many as possible may speak.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I shall be as brief as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have great sympathy with all the hon. Members who have spoken about the way in which their constituencies have been directly affected by outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. I am fortunate enough to have a large farming constituency that has not, so far, had an outbreak, although a suspected case a few weeks ago turned out to be negative.
I intend to speak on the impact of the current situation on my constituency and my farmers. I have some suggestions for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that may ease matters. My farmers have problems of animal welfare and the costs that flow from that. In particular, the establishment of the longer-distance licence movement scheme has raised some problems. It is, I accept, a brand new scheme, which is bound to have

teething problems, but it is important to address such problems quickly so that movements in my constituency and that of my he n. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs Lawrence) may take place.
Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and, to a lesser extent, Ceredigion are areas in which there are many sheep during winter. Thousands of sheep from elsewhere in Wales are now on pasture that should be used for dairy herds. That is adding significantly to animal welfare problems for sheep that should be moved elsewhere and to the costs of farmers who want to get their dairy herds into the fields.
There are also welfare problems for dairy herds that are off their home farms and within the same area but outside the short-distance movement radius for the previous licensing scheme. That problem was brought to my attention by Mr. and Mrs. John, whose home farm is near Templeton in my constituency, but who rent land 25 to 30 miles away in Angle. They have 50 dairy cows calving on that land at the moment. They want to bring the cows to their home farm for obvious reasons. They are travelling three times a day back and forth, which is not a good thing when we are trying to limit the number of movements. It is essential that the licence scheme for longer-distance movement should be got up and running.
The initial problem with the availability of application forms has now been sorted. That was followed by the problem of centres for disinfection and cleaning of vehicles, which are essential. That, too, is now up and running. Now, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) said, there are questions about the licences themselves. I understand that matters are in hand, but the licences must be made available as quickly as possible.
I perceive a further problem. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that movements would be accompanied, and I have reservations about that. I understand that agricultural development advisory service staff will accompany the vehicles, but as some round trips may amount to 100 or 200 miles, tying up staff to accompany some vehicles may create a problem with finding personnel to accompany others. As the vehicles will be sealed, just as Customs and Excise seals bonded vehicles between a port and a bonded warehouse, would it not be better for ADAS staff to seal a vehicle at one end and have another member of staff at the receiving farm to ensure that the seal had not been tampered with? It would seem better to use ADAS personnel in that way than to insist on them making the full journey.
I want to raise with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State the over-30-months scheme, to which other hon. Members have also referred. An early decision is needed that payment will be made to farmers with beef cattle who, through no fault of their own, cannot get the cattle to market before the 30-months deadline and who thus make a substantial loss. That would be welcome.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food referred to the need to establish collection centres so that the smaller beef producers can put together a load of animals to be taken to an abattoir. I realise that there are difficulties, but I hope that work will continue on such schemes; they offer a way of ensuring that beef cattle get to an abattoir before the 30-months deadline
I have some comments on the wider rural economy. As I have pointed out in previous debates, I was a Member of Parliament when we were dealing with the Sea Empress disaster, which had a massive effect on the tourism industry although there was a huge compensation scheme. In my constituency, the tourism sector is probably far larger than the agriculture sector in that it employs more people and generates more revenue. Even in seaside resorts such as Tenby and Saundersfoot, hoteliers are already expressing real concern about the impact of foot and mouth.
We learned several lessons from our experience after the Sea Empress disaster in 1996. The first was that perception is all. News programmes covered in great detail, rightly, the environmental damage—the huge amounts of oil washed up on the Carmarthenshire and south Pembrokeshire coasts. During the first week of that disaster, the phones rang constantly at the hotels and caravan parks; unfortunately, all the calls were cancellations. Even though the disaster happened in February, people were cancelling their July and August holidays because of their perception that the whole environment of Pembrokeshire was so seriously damaged that they would not be able to take their holidays. That was not true, but that was the perception at the time.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is not in his place at present, referred to the cancellation of the county council elections—as did his hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). If that happened, the perception would be that the whole British countryside had closed down. We know that that is not true—especially those of us who live in our rural constituencies. We know that people are moving about. I accept that there are real restrictions in those areas where there are outbreaks, but the vast bulk of Britain has no restrictions—people just need to be sensible.
The hon. Member for Nest Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) said that the advice from MAFF was hit and miss—it was not clear. However, it is horses for courses. We cannot have people walking across the moors in the Peak district, where there are huge areas of open land and a large number of sheep; but elsewhere, people can go into the countryside to visit particular attractions or towns—to castles, beaches and so on. We have to get that message across.
Timing is all. That is the second lesson that we learned from the Sea Empress. It is pointless to mount a massive advertising campaign—as has been suggested—if, while we are trying to promote the idea that everything is okay in the countryside, we see only buning pyres on our news programmes.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment rightly announced, following the work of the taskforce, that investment and additional resources will available to tourism associations and so on, but it is essential that the advertising campaign is timed correctly, otherwise it will be completely fruitless. The intention will not be achieved because people's perceptions will be formed by what they see on their television screens. No matter how many adverts are run and how many articles appear in newspapers, we shall not achieve our aims while those pictures remain on our television screens. It is essential that the campaign takes place and that we gear up for it, because there is no question that it will be needed.

There will be very large consequential losses not only in agriculture, but in the tourism sector. I am very pleased with yesterday's announcement, but it is an interim statement, and the taskforce clearly needs to undertake further work. However, I remain convinced that substantial funds will have to be made available in various forms to the rural economy, to our farmers and to our tourism sector, so that they can fully recover.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Together with the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), my constituency, which is in south-west Cheshire, is the largest milk field in Europe and the most intensive dairy farming area in the United Kingdom. That area was at the epicentre of the 1967–68 outbreak of foot and mouth, which devastated the farmers, their families, the rural communities and many of my constituents and their forebears in Darnhall, Winsford and the other villages in the area.
The book, "Plague on the Cheshire Plain"—published in 1969, by the then editor and his colleague of The Chester Chronicle, Messrs. Herbert Hughes and J. 0. Jones—records, in all its horrific detail, the scale of my constituency's appalling experiences of that time and the beginnings of the recovery that took place a little under a year later. The preface states:
We say now, it must not happen again … This, then, is the story of Cheshire's greatest farming disaster—this long trouble on some of the fairest fields in England. It is a story which, we hope, will never have to be told again.
With two confirmed cases at Baddiley, just a short distance from my family's home in the constituency, the spectre of my constituents having to go through that disaster again, 34 years later, is all too real. For Mr. Hockenhull and the Huntbach family, who have lost all their stock, that has now become real, and I know that the House will join me in saying that our hearts go out to them. None of us who lived through that time—1 was 10, and remember it well—will ever forget the acrid and bitter smell of the burning cattle pyres blazing across Cheshire.
I did not intervene on the Minister about that point because I understood why he seemed not to want to take interventions at the time, but the 1967 outbreak, which geographically was relatively contained compared with today's epidemic, lasted nine months, which may be a guide to the time scale that we must seriously contemplate today. Following that dreadful time, there were many lessons to be learned, most of which were set out in the excellent and thorough 1969 report. Sadly, I am now doubtful whether all those lessons were learned, although many were.
In Eddisbury today, there is real fear, stress and anger. However, my constituents are responsible people; they support the measures that have been taken, but they want them to go much further, much faster. In the interests of time, I shall not list what many right hon. and hon. Members have already mentioned, but I endorse all that they have said.
Of all the lessons in the 1969 report, the key one is speed of action in containing the spread of disease. Speed is of the absolute essence, especially between farmers contacting the vet, the vet investigating the clinical suspicion and confirming the presence of the disease, and the slaughter and disposal of the animals. It is important


that the animals be buried in preference to burning. However, burning may be necessary, and on-farm disposal is the key.
I pay tribute to all the residents of Eddisbury who have notably sought to comply with all the restrictions, because they are deeply conscious of the desperate anxiety that exists.
Safe zones have been mentioned, but it is unfortunate that zones that were safe in Cheshire on Tuesday then became unsafe on Wednesday—the very day the Minister talked about the concept. That is unhelpful and we need much greater clarification. I call on the Government to give aid to all who seek to help the farmers, as well as to provide that clarification for all those who live in the country and depend on the rural economy.
A problem arises out of yesterday's announcement by the Minister for the Environment about compensation. Understandably, he focused his remarks on the retail sector, even though many, such as Mr. Clacker's company in my constituency, are contractors laying pipelines across farmland on behalf of the utilities. They are not in the retail sector, but they have been desperately seriously affected. However, because they have a job but now no income, they are not able to access the compensation arrangements. It is important that their needs should be taken into account, so I call on the Government to consider carefully the needs of the non-retail sector.
I want to be brief, and I know that the Minister has sought to address today the issue that I shall raise now. I received information on the day that the outbreak was announced suggesting that several constituents had heard that timber supplies for pyres had been sought many weeks before the outbreak began. With due diligence, I spoke to those sources and I raised the issue in the proper manner in a named day written question that is due for answer tomorrow. I shall not prejudge the issue even though I know that press speculation and some excitable comment has attracted headlines. However, as far as I am concerned, the answers will be received tomorrow and that is when we shall judge them. I look forward to that, and I am grateful to the Minister for addressing my concerns.
I want to ensure that the Minister and his team are aware of an issue on which I have been guided by Mrs. Perry of Pear Tree farm, who has experience of the 1967 outbreak, and the House of Commons Library, which at breakneck speed came up with some evidence today. I have not heard much from the Ministry about the contact that it has had with the Meteorological Office. Weather is a key issue. According to historical records, we are entering the windiest time of the year and we have extensive evidence from the outbreak in 1967, notably from Mr. Rowland Tinline, about wind-driven spread.
There have been all sorts of experiments about lee wind and wind-driven spread but, in summary, Mr. Tinline's research showed that
airborne spread was the major spread mechanism. Wind direction, wind speed and 'wind swing' were the major weather variables that influenced spread. Rainfall had little effect except perhaps in isolated cases".
Experiments have demonstrated that considerable reduction in outbreaks could be obtained by reducing the slaughter and confirmation periods through increasing

exponentially field veterinary staff. I therefore endorse everything that is happening to try to increase the numbers of such staff.
The issue of ring vaccination has been touched on today, but the research shows that such schemes
were successful in terms of controlling spread but showed that accurate weather forecasts is about 20 days in advance were required.
That is why it is so important, in considering all the options, to liaise closely with the Meteorological Office. I am sure that the Minister will want to reassure me that such liaison is taking place. Wind-driven, airborne spread appears to be taking place in Cumbria, not least because of the turbulence created by the wind.
I am conscious that I need to keep my remarks brief, but it is appropriate to share with the House something that has touched me greatly in the current crisis. It is an anonymous prayer—that is typical of farmers and their folklore—that appears in the book "Plague on the Cheshire Plain". It was written by a Shropshire farmer in 1967, and I am sure that the whole House will share in these sentiments:
Let us pray for those who tend our herds and flocks and all who stand guard this day. May God comfort the afflicted and give them new hope. Strengthen the resolve and diligence of those who tend with loving care the coven hoofed animals and remove the fears which each day brings.
Let us give thanks for the fortitude of the few who labour in the task and for the understanding and self denial of the many.
Let us pray for the winds to be stilled so that a calm and peaceful countryside can open its pleasures once again to all people.
I wish to offer support for the Minister for what he has done so far, and ask him to listen carefully to all the constructive points about more action that have been made in this serious debate.

Mrs. Janet Dean: I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate, because the issue is of grave concern to my constituents. I apologise that I could not be present in the House earlier, but I sent a note to the Speaker's Office to explain that I had a long-standing constituency engagement.
I returned to the House because the issue is so important. Seven cases of foot and mouth disease have been found in my constituency—one bordering the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and six in a hotspot in the Leigh and Bramshall area
The disease is devastating for people who are directly affected by it and, as many hon. Members have said, it is desperately worrying for those who farm close by. However, it is not just farmers who are under a great strain. The local cattle market in my constituency has closed, which has had a knock-on effect on the retail trade in the market town of Uttoxeter. It has also meant that the Friday retail market, which takes place on the cattle market site, no longer takes place and Uttoxeter race course has closed. Sadly, the local abattoir has had to close, with 15 men being laid off.
Local businesses that are also in difficulty include those that one would not expect to be affected, such as the glass works in Tutbury. Not only is that firm missing the tourism trade, but it is losing out on orders for competition prizes because those are not taking place. Hopefully, as a


result of yesterday's announcement by the Minister for the Environment, the canals will reopen. That will help a local company that produces a superb book on canals.
Like many hon. Members, I welcome yesterday's statement. It is desperately important that we do not accept that all the countryside is out of bounds. It is not. However, we must be careful about where we allow people to go in our countryside. The most important consideration is to tackle foot and mouth.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) mentioned Cheshire. I grew up on farm there, and I know what it was like when there were outbreaks of foot and mouth. My father had just moved over the border into Staffordshire when the 1967 outbreak occurred. Thankfully, my family's farm never suffered from foot and mouth, but the fear that we might have been next is very real in my memory. It was different then because Cheshire had mainly dairy herds.
Blame has been placed on the lack of abattoirs. It is true that there are fewer of them, but one of the greatest problems is the movement of livestock, especially sheep, around the country and into different markets. That was the source of the outbreak in Leigh. Farmers from that area have contacted me because they are worried about the way in which the disease is being handled. There is concern that the disease is hidden in sheep. One farm, which has now had foot and mouth diagnosed in its cattle, was checked by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for several weeks because it had sheep from Longtown market. However, those sheep have not tested positive.
People are deeply worried that sheep in areas where there are also cattle may be the hidden source of future outbreaks in cattle. I have received requests, which I have conveyed to the Minister's office, for the introduction of a voluntary disposal system so that people who are prepared to give up their sheep within two miles of an outbreak are allowed to do so. I hope that that is given serious consideration.
We must also carry out a risk assessment of the possible causes of future outbreaks. No doubt much of the disease is spread by the wind, but the problem is compounded because foot and mouth is not easily identifiable in sheep. Perhaps cases were identified quickly in Cheshire because the disease was predominantly in cattle.
One of the main points that farmers have raised with me and, I am sure, many other Members, is that we must try to speed up the time between identifying the disease and disposing of carcases. That is crucial for disease control and for environmental reasons, and also because, otherwise, people are living on farms alongside dead animals.
Another issue that has been raised with me is closure, which I understand will be for six months. It means not only that farmers cannot have animals on the farm for that time, but that they will be unable to produce hay and silage. Farms that close now because of foot and mouth disease will need fodder for animals when they are allowed to return.
I know that the Government are doing everything possible to look at how the system can be improved. In the end, sadly, the disease will run its course, but I hope that we can put an end to it far quicker than we did in 1967.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I commend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the way in which he opened the debate. He was correct to say that this is not a party political matter, and he handled it as such. Indeed, how could it be a party political matter? We all agree on the problem, which is foot and mouth, and we all agree on the solution, which is eradication.
The right hon. Gentleman's remarks were in contrast to those made by the Leader of the House yesterday, perhaps by way of a slip, when she said that animals were in quarantine, not people. Two farmers who telephoned me today after hearing that were extremely frightened by the implications, but that is not the tone in which the Minister conducted the debate and I am grateful to him for it.
It is essential that country people have confidence in the way in which the system is operating. The Minister may find it unpleasant to know this, but he must understand that there is a lack of confidence in the far south-west about some aspects of the situation. Time does not allow me to quote correspondence in great detail, but one farmer who wrote to me, Roderick Young, said that the tenants of a particular farm
have been subjected to living in quarantine surrounded by their stinking dead animals for the last six to seven days.
He concluded:
It is quite obvious to those on the ground. surrounded by the stinking, rotting carcasses of their animals that something is not quite right.
He makes a good point.
If we have 108,000 animals waiting to be slaughtered and 80,000 waiting to be disposed of, we are not there yet. That is why I wish that the Minister had been able to consider using the Army in a different way. Nobody suggests that the Army should go boar hunting in Essex, but it does have expertise, through the engineers, in performing tasks such as burial, and it would be well capable of doing that. I shall not ask the Minister to assent to my next comment because I do not think that he will like what follows. I suspect that he might have some sympathy with what I am saying, but the Army is not being used in that way because the Prime Minister knows that if it were, the cat would be right out of the bag and people would realise that this is a national crisis that goes far beyond the regions that are affected.
As this is a national crisis, we have gone far beyond mere talk of compensation. We must realise that we are talking not about compensating individuals, but about the need for massive infrastructural input to ensure that whole regions do not simply crash out of economic prosperity altogether.
In the hope that many of the hon. Members who have been here for some time will be able to contribute to the debate, I shall make my final point. We must look at control. The Agriculture Minister will remember an exchange with me on 1 February. when I put it to him that when there is good, solid evidence abroad about unsafe meat coming into this country, it is not a sufficient response to say that to act in those circumstances might be considered anti-European. The one point that is common ground between us—the Minister has always had the courage and grace to admit it—is that this condition came from overseas, and whatever other conclusions we come to, we need to look at our importation controls.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I have nothing but praise for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He has treated the House with great courtesy and patience and he has tried to be as helpful as possible. The substance of all his remarks today and on previous occasions is that we want national unity to tackle this crisis. He said also that we want to have a Parliament that he can report to regularly. It would be an absolute scandal if a Government with 14 months of their mandate left, a massive majority and now a national crisis to add to their other unfinished business, plunged the country into an unnecessarily premature general election. That would be a great disservice. The Prime Minister's remarks this afternoon gave me the impression that he was not fully apprised of the great national calamity facing us. He talked with a glib assurance that was deeply disturbing and in marked contrast to the tone adopted by his right hon. Friend the Agriculture Minister.
The Government should not divide those parts of the country that are terribly beset by this dreadful disease by holding local elections. They should be postponed in certain areas of the country, but not necessarily everywhere. It would be contrary to the Minister's wish to maintain national unity if the Parliament to which he is answerable were dissolved prematurely and unnecessarily. We must face the crisis together and fight it together. We wish to give the Minister the support that his gentlemanly and sensible conduct manifestly deserves.

Mr. Damian Green: Anyone who has listened to our debate over the past few hours will have been struck by two things: the sheer scale of the crisis facing our countryside and the extent of the misery that it has created for communities across the United Kingdom. We wanted an Opposition day debate because of our alarm—which is increasing day by day—about the fact that, in some ways, the response to the crisis in the countryside does not measure up to the scale of the problem.
I have no complaint about the Government's motives and objectives, especially those of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whose speech was, I think, appreciated by the whole House. He is much more aware of the desperate nature of the situation than, I suspect, some of his colleagues. However, some of the Government's actions have been late, half-hearted and not effective enough. There are two separate crises hidden within the overall problem: the farming crisis, and the collapse of various local economies that depend on a combination of tourism and agriculture. Our motion and the Government amendment both make that clear, yet the wider economic aspects were only touched on by the Minister. However, they should be taken just as seriously as the farming crisis.
I shall say a few words about farming first. In the past few hours we have heard from Members on both sides of the House that farmers want speedy and decisive action. They need quick diagnosis, quick slaughter if necessary and quick disposal of carcases. Above all, they need immediate, authoritative and clear advice. All too often they are still getting none of that and I am afraid that all the Minister's charm cannot hide that fact. Too many farmers in Britain today are not just frightened: they are confused and are getting contradictory advice from local and regional offices.
That is why, a few days ago, we proposed three specific actions that the Government could take. As many Members on both sides of the House have said, we recognise that this is a national crisis, and in those circumstances, it is the role of a responsible Opposition to be constructive as well as critical. That is what we have sought to be, and we shall continue our role as the crisis proceeds. The Minister has made moves following our suggestions about speeding up the slaughter without requiring a lab test and bringing more vets to the front line. I am glad that he recognised that our suggestions were genuine and constructive. In return, may I say that we welcome the steps that he has taken, but we want him to do more and we want him to do it quickly?
Last week, we suggested that the Army be used for the disposal of carcases We welcome the small steps that the Government announced yesterday, but they are not enough. The average wait of two days between diagnosis and slaughter, and another two days between slaughter and disposal, disguises the longer and more dangerous gaps that are occurring in some cases. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr . Campbell—Savours) said that he was pleased that, in Cumbria, 36 hours is now the going time between diagnosis and slaughter. I am sure that many of the farmers in Cumbria, about whom we heard some eloquent tales from my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), still regard the 36-hour wait as inadequate as the crisis threatens to envelope them.
I hope that the Minister will deal within the next few days with the welfare of animals, which is becoming one of the new focuses of the crisis. My hon. Friends have said a lot about pigs, but he should deal also with the thousands of sheep that are starting to lamb in unsuitable land, miles from were they should be. For two weeks, farmers have known that many such sheep are dying. They cannot move them and they are asking MAFF for guidance, but too often they are getting none. I know that from my constituency and from colleagues representing areas around the country. I profoundly hope that the Minister's words will be followed by action within hours, rather than days. Th a is what is needed if a serious animal welfare crisis is to be prevented from hitting large areas of the country, including some that have not been as badly hit as those about which we have been hearing. The outbreak could spre td and hit new areas.
I am also grateful to the Minister for his unequivocal statement that he and his officials had no knowledge of any infection before 18 February. I am happy to accept his assurance that the phone calls that were made to timber merchants were part of a regular contingency planning process. However, that gives rise to another vital question: what does all this contingency planning achieve? If there is a contingency plan and it is regularly practised, why is it taking so long for sensible solutions to be put in place? The Minister made welcome comments about valuation tariffs, but we are now a month into the outbreak. Is not the Army included in the contingency plan? Various hon. Members spoke bout using the Royal Engineers. Whether or not one believes that it is right to use them—the Opposition believe that it is—surely the Army would have been included in any contingency plan. There is no evidence in the Government's reaction to suggest that it was. Whatever time and effort was put into the regular contingency plan, it was, frankly, a waste of energy, as the Government seem to have started from scratch.
Similarly, as the debate is rolling on we are hearing that the Environment Agency is gearing up for action with regard to on-farm burial. Will the Minister of State tell us whether the agency is included in the contingency planning process? When was it brought in to consider suitable burial sites? Does not it already have records telling it where the sites are located? If so, why are we not using them now, four weeks into the crisis? From the outside, it is impossible to tell whether the Environment Agency is being dilatory or whether its attention was directed at the problem too late. It holds the key to the solution to one part of the crisis and it needs urgently to raise its game.
The crisis goes much wider than farming. Yesterday, the Minister for the Environment announced some welcome steps towards dealing with the wider issues, although I fear that they are too tentative. As many of my hon. Friends said in response, more needs to be done and it must be done now. I am delighted that the Minister for the Environment has joined us. It is regrettable that he has not participated in the debate, not least because the motion and the amendment make clear that there are two sides to the outbreak: the agricultural crisis and the wider crisis.
Indeed, I agree with one of the points that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) made in a thoughtful speech. She said that, as someone who followed the crisis carefully because of her constituency interests, she did not know what the taskforce was doing. She wanted more information; the debate afforded a good opportunity for providing it.
Yesterday, the Minister for the Environment made some welcome announcements. However, it is significant that, in a 16-paragraph statement, he used the word "consider" four times. That sums up the statement; the Government are considering doing many things. I shall quote part of a fax that the chief executive of the British Incoming Tour Operators Association sent my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) a couple of days ago:
We need help—and we need it fast if Brtain's inbound tourism industry is not to collapse. I've been in this industry over 30 years and I've not seen anything like it (including the Gulf war!)
It continues:
No long drawn out 'consultation' processes or 'reviews' or 'consideration will be given' … & Action this day, please!
He is right.
In a 24-hour period, the organisation received many damaging cancellations. They include 12 adult German groups, representing a value of £14 million, and 21 student groups, representing a value of about £1 million. The Austrian Government have advised their nationals not to travel to the United Kingdom. Ninety per cent. of language students for a particular course have cancelled. Tour operators report that forward bookings are non-existent.
Confusion at the heart of Government exacerbates the problem. The Prime Minister and Labour Members have told us that we must encourage tourists to visit the British countryside and that it is open for business. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) pointed out, Derbyshire county council, doubtless with the best intentions, has taken out adverts headed "Help Stop the Spread of Foot and Mouth", which state:
Help us protect our countryside—don't visit unless you have to.

It is not surprising that potential tourists are confused about the message.

Mr. Luff: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is highlighting that point. In tonight's Worcester Evening News, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), is reported as urging
people to stay away from the countryside in an effort to curb the spread of foot-and-mouth in the county.
Is not that different from the message that the Prime Minister gave the House this afternoon? Is it not time for the Government to clarify their message?

Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There is confusion in Government about solving the crisis. Resolution will remain difficult as long as the confusion continues.
Many businesses besides tourism are in severe, possibly terminal, difficulties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) therefore called today for interest-free loans for businesses that qualify for rate relief. Attracting tourists back to the English countryside will take some time. It is clear that we need practical action now to help the cash flow of those businesses so that they continue to exist to take advantage of any upturn. Conservative Members will continue to offer practical ideas; they are desperately needed by thousands of businesses, which will go under unless the Government act now.
Everyone in the House and in the country shares the objective of ending the crisis as soon as possible. I hope that everyone shares the view that the Government should concentrate all their energy on dealing with the crisis. The Minister admitted with characteristic honesty that the epidemic will get worse and that the outbreak will show a rising trend. If he is right, the British people will not understand it if the Government do anything to suggest that solving the crisis is not their highest priority. If they have another matter at the forefront of their thinking in the next few weeks, they will fail to tackle the crisis in the countryside and earn the condemnation of those who live and work there. They will pay the penalty, and they will deserve it. For the sake of those who are clinging to their livelihoods throughout our country, I hope that the Government will choose the honourable path.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The debate has reflected accurately the fears and anxieties felt in all parts of the country as a result of this dreadful disease. Right hon. and hon. Members of all parties have spoken of the immense distress caused to farmers who have had confirmed cases or suspected cases, or who are in infected areas. Members representing non-infected areas have also vividly expressed the fear of farmers in their areas that they might be affected in their turn. A number of hon. Members mentioned that, including the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who also praised the Opposition for holding this debate.
While I fully understand that the Opposition would choose this subject for debate, I do not accept that Ministers have not made time to address the House on these issues. The Minister for the Environment made a statement yesterday, and regular statements have also


been made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who was also, quite properly, giving evidence to the Select Committee on Agriculture all morning.
The severity of the situation has understandably and powerfully been referred to by many Members. Not surprisingly, that has been particularly true of Members from Cumbria. The speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours), the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and other Cumbrian Members showed that they were deeply concerned. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has an Adjournment debate on this very subject tonight.
The south-west has also been very badly affected and, not surprisingly, has been referred to throughout the debate. So has the area round the Welsh border—particularly Powys—and the area of Dumfries and Galloway, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) made a powerful speech. There are a number of worrying hotspots around the country. Even in my own part of the world, we are very concerned about the concentration in Durham, Tyne and Wear and the adjacent area of Northumberland, where there are also a considerable number of cases.
We have also heard outstanding contributions from hon. Members representing other areas who are very close to the situation of farmers in their constituencies. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) and for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith).
Let me say something about the role of all Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on this issue. As has been pointed out by many hon. Members, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has shouldered a huge burden of responsibility, and I certainly echo the many compliments that he has received in the Chamber today. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Hayman, as Minister responsible for animal health, has also been fully involved in the issue and has to report regularly to the other place.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the Ministry's representative on the taskforce, building on his experience working on the rural White Paper and as the Minister responsible for the countryside. I have responsibility for trade issues, not many of which have been aired today. None the less, many companies throughout the country are affected by export restrictions. I assure the House that we are working closely with companies to provide the necessary certification for when they are able to export again. We also work with them when they encounter export obstacles created by other countries—either European Union or third countries—because import blockages are imposed, even against products not covered by the restrictions. That is an important area of work. As a result, I have a weekly meeting with representatives of the trade and the companies concerned to tackle some of the issues.
I pay tribute to officials and staff. People are working round the clock. I have experienced that on visits to offices around the country, and I know that many administrative staff in the Ministry's regional centres and animal health staff are making Herculean efforts to tackle the problems.
A number of Members, including the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), referred to the 1967 situation. He and I bumped into each other in the Library last night and we discussed that outbreak, to which the hon. Member for ddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) also referred because of his constituency interest in it. We have learned lessons from 1967 and it would not be true to say that no one involved in tackling the disease this time has any knowledge of what happened during that outbreak. Indeed, the chief vet himself, Jim Scudamore, has such knowledge.
I accept the differences, to which hon. Members referred, between tt e two events. Many Members on both sides made the point that the current outbreak has occurred at a time of enormous difficulty for farming. The tourism industry was perhaps not as important to the national economy in those days, but this time round, Cumbria and Devon, two of England's premier tourism areas, are affected. as is tourism in other parts of the country, as hon. Members vividly described.
There are also differences in our knowledge of the environment, which affects some possibilities, but not all, of disposal by burial. On wider losses, the Government have already beer more imaginative than were the Government in the 1967 outbreak—certainly in respect of considering the welfare disposal route for animals, the work of the rural taskforce and other, wider measures.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Minister accept from me that the wider losses are analogous to a natural disaster and that they will place a great burden on local authorities? Local authorities can take advantage of the Bellwin scheme, so can we consider a similar measure to support them in their dealings with local businesses in affected areas? Will she also consider the Treasury suggestion for a community investment trust to achieve urban regeneration, which could be used to regenerate rural areas as well?

Ms Quin: I know that the hon. Gentleman wanted to contribute to the debate and he makes some useful points. Obviously the rural taskforce is examining some of those issues, but it make sense to consider what has worked elsewhere—urban regeneration schemes, for example—and think about whether such ideas can be applied to the current situation. The Bellwin scheme can be considered in that context.
Another difference from 1967 is that this country is a significant agricultural exporter. That was pointed out in an interesting article in the press yesterday by Professors Thompson and Oswald. Not surprisingly, many Members on both sides of the House referred to the different measures taken to tackle the disease, including the various ones mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
There are measures for disease control and for protecting specialist breeds and flocks, which two Members raised, and we have introduced a scheme to


allow movement of animals to slaughter to help the market to pick up. I hope that the welfare disposal scheme will start very shortly.

Mr. Duncan: When?

Ms Quin: I said "very shortly", which is what we expect. I want to pick up points made by hon. Members by saying that it is best to introduce the scheme properly and in a way that will work. That is why we are preparing it in the way that we are.
Many Members mentioned the various schemes relating to the movement of animals, including short-term movement. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) thanked my office for its help, but I take his point that we want the scheme to work without the need for our private ministerial offices to be contacted. The longer-term movement scheme is also important, and is now under way.
Members on both sides of the House have said that bureaucracy must not override common sense, and I accept that.

Mr. Maclean: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Quin: I will not, because I have only a few minutes in which to finish my speech, and I want to respond to a couple of points made by the right hon. Gentleman himself. As he knows, we spoke earlier about the situation in his area.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made an interesting point about variation in the size of restricted zones. The borders of the zones are sometimes pushed beyond the minimum to natural boundaries, or for topographical or meteorological reasons. The hon. Member for Eddisbury mentioned the importance of meteorological considerations. None the less, the distance to which he referred seems lengthy, and we shall therefore look into the example that he gave.
Mention was made of the increase in the number of vets. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) met a vet from overseas who had come to help us, and the number has indeed increased considerably. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) mentioned on-farm burial. Animals have been buried when it has been safe to do so, but in each case we have been guided very much by environmental considerations.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater said that we should not be embarrassed about asking for military assistance. I assure him that we are not, and that the Army is already deploying successfully at three levels. We expect its contribution to increase in the way outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington mentioned changes in management in Cumbria I am glad that he welcomed the arrival of Jane Brown as director of operations. I also commend to him the assistant chief veterinary officer, Richard Drummond, who will oversee veterinary operations in the area.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked about the countryside stewardship scheme. I assure him that we are considering whether it may be necessary to extend the deadline for applications beyond 31 May, as

he suggested, and also considering ways in which we can help farmers to make applications between now and the deadline.
Wider issues were mentioned, particularly by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) —who now seems deep in conversation. Those wider issues are important. Many speakers have talked movingly of the effect of the crisis on the wider rural community, and of the devastation faced by some members of that community. It is particularly frustrating that in many cases that devastation—that reduction in commercial opportunities—is unnecessary, which is why it is so important to convey a clear message. Over the next few days, we shall embark on television and other publicity to make that message as clear as possible.
I applaud some of the efforts made by the Cumbria taskforce—which has been mentioned—by the taskforce comprising Exmoor businesses that have united to seek opportunities, and by similar efforts in the area represented by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire.
The Government have kept the House informed and responded to hon. Members' concerns. We have to bear down on the disease as effectively as possible.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question: —

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 305.

Division No. 164]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Chidgey, David


Allan, Richard
Chope, Christopher


Amess, David
Clappison, James


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)



Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Collins, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Ballard, Jackie
Cotter, Brian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cran, James


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bercow, John
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Blunt, Crispin
Day, Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Evans, Nigel


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fabricant, Michael


Brady, Graham
Fallon, Michael


Brake, Tom
Fearn, Ronnie


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Flight, Howard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fox, Dr Liam


Burnett, John
Fraser, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burstow, Paul
Garnier, Edward


Butterfill, John
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Gibb, Nick



Gidley, Sandra


Cash, William
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa



Gray, James






Green, Damian
Paice, James


Greenway, John
Paterson, Owen


Grieve, Dominic
Pickles, Eric


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Prior, David


Hammond, Philip
Randall, John


Hancock, Mike
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Harris, Dr Evan
Rendel, David


Harvey, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hayes, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heald, Oliver
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Ruffley, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
St Aubyn, Nick


Horam, John
Sanders, Adrian


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Jenkin, Bernard
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Keetch, Paul
Spicer, Sir Michael


Key, Robert
Spring, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Stunell, Andrew


Kirkwood, Archy
Swayne, Desmond


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Syms, Robert


Leigh, Edward
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lidington, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Livsey, Richard
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Llwyd, Elfyn
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Loughton, Tim
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Townend, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Trend, Michael


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Tyler, Paul


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tyrie, Andrew


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Walter, Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Madel, Sir David
Wells, Bowen


Major, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Malins, Humfrey
Whittingdale, John


Maples, John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Mates, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Willetts, David


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Willis, Phil


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Moore, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Moss, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Nicholls, Patrick
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Norman, Archie



O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Öpik, Lembit
Mr. Peter Luff and


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bennett, Andrew F


Allen, Graham
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Bermingham, Gerald



Berry. Roger


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Best, Harold


Ashton, Joe
Betts, Clive


Atkins, Charlotte
Blackman, Liz


Austin, John
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Banks, Tony
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Barnes, Harry
Borrow, David


Barron, Kevin
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Bayley, Hugh
Bradshaw, Ben


Beard, Nigel
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Begg, Miss Anne
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Browne, Desmond





Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burgon, Colin
Grocott, Bruce


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Grogan, John


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hain, Peter

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Caplin, Ivor
Healey, John


Casale, Roger
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Caton, Martin
Hendrick, Mark


Cawsey, Ian
Hepburn, Stephen


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Heppell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia



Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clelland, David
Hoey, Kate


Clwyd, Ann
Hope, Phil


Coaker, Vernon
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coffey, Ms Ann
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Cohen, Harry
Howells, Dr Kim


Coleman, lain
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Colman, Tony
Humble, Mrs Joan


Connarty, Michael
Hutton, John


Cooper, Yvette
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corbett, Robin
Illsley, Eric


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cox, Tom
Jenkins, Brian


Cranston, Ross
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Crausby, David
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)



Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)



Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov't[...]y S)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Davidson, lan
Joyce, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L[...]anelli)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)



Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dawson, Hilton
Kemp, Fraser


Dean, Mrs Janet
Khabra, Piara S


Denham, Rt Hon John
Kidney, David


Dismore, Andrew
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dobbin, Jim
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Donohoe, Brian H
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Doran, Frank
Lammy, David


Dowd, Jim
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Laxton, Bob


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Leslie, Christopher


Edwards, Huw
Levitt, Tom


Efford, Clive
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Ennis, Jeff
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Fisher, Mark
Linton, Martin


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lloyd. Tony (Manchester C)


Flint, Caroline
Lock, David


Flynn, Paul
Love, Andrew


Follett, Barbara
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Macdonald, Calum


Foulkes, George
McDonnell, John


Fyfe, Maria
McFall, John


Galloway, George
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gerrard, Neil
Mclsaac, Shona


Gibson, Dr Ian
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
McNamara, Kevin


Godsiff, Roger
McNulty, Tony


Goggins, Paul
MacShane, Denis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading [...])
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice






Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Salter, Ma[...]tin


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sarwar, Mohammed


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Savidge, Malcolm


Martlew, Eric 
Sawford, Phil


Maxton, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Jonathan 


Meale, Alan
Sheerman Barry


Merron, Gillian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Shipley, Ms Debra


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Miller, Andrew 
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Moffatt,Laura
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morley, Elliot
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B' ham Yardley)
Soley, Clive



Southworth, Ms Helen


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Speller, John



Squire, Ms Rachel


Mountford, Kali
Steinberg, Gerry


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stevensort, George


Mudie, George
Stewart, lan (Eccles)


Mullin, Chris
Stinchcorribe, Paul


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Murphy. Jim (Eastwood)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stringer, Graham


Norris, Dan
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Hara, Eddie 



Olner, Bill
Temple—Morris, Peter


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Timms, Stephen


Palmer, Dr Nick
Todd, Mark


Pearson, Ian 
Touhig, Don


Pickthall, Colin
Trickett, Jon


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Plaskitt, James
Turner, D[...] Desmond (Kemptown)


Pollard. Kerry
Turner, D[...] George (NW Norfolk)


Pope, Greg
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Tynan, Bill


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Walley, Ms Joan


Primarolo, Dawn
Ward, Ms Claire


Prosser, Gwyn
Watts, David


Purchase, Ken
White, Brain


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Quinn, Lawrie
Wicks, Malcolm


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rapson, Syd



Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Wills, Michael



Winnick, David


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Winterton Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wood, Mike


Rogers, Allan
Woodward, Shaun


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Worthington, Tony


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Rowlands, Ted
Wright, Tony(Cannock)


Roy, Frank
Wyatt, Derek


Ruane, Chris
Tellers for the Noes:


Ruddock, Joan
Mr. David Jamieson and


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House expresses grave concern about the very serious effect of the current foot and mouth outbreak on farmers, the livestock industry and the wider rural economy; supports the firm and rapid action taken by the Government to control the spread of the disease, identify outbreaks and slaughter and dispose of animals that are infected or 'at risk'; pays tribute to all those who are continuing to work around the clock to combat this devastating disease; endorses the Government's policy of intensifying disease control measures in areas of high infectivity and working towards modifying controls in areas that have remained free of the disease; expresses deepest sympathy to those farmers whose herds and flocks have been slaughtered in order to control the disease; and welcomes the Government's provision of financial support to farmers including £156 million in extra agrimonetary compensation and a preliminary package of measures to assist the wider rural economy including temporary business rate relief for affected businesses.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS

That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, he approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND EQUALITY

That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Designation of Public Authorities) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

PENSIONS

That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions) (Salary Related Contracted-out Schemes) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

PENSIONS

That the draft Social Security (Minimum Contribution to Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

PENSIONS

That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, and Rebates) (Money Purchase Contracted-out Schemes) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Tax Credits Up-rating Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.

FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS

That the draft Open-Ended Investment Companies Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 77) on 2000/2001 Special Grant for Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (HC 315), which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved. —[Mr. Touhig.]

Question agreed to.

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)

Motion made,

That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:

Line 31, at end add—
`( ) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
( ) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
( ) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'. — [Mr. Touhig.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest— [Mr. Touhig.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,

That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.

Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
`(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Foot and Mouth (Cumbria)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Touhig.]

Mr. Eric Martlew: I apologise to the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for keeping her on the Front Bench. She has been here for most of the day and I am sorry that she will have to be here for a while yet.
May I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to my constituency on Sunday at very short notice to talk to the National Farmers Union and the farmers regarding the very serious problems that Cumbria has with foot and mouth? There are more cases of foot and mouth in Cumbria than in any other county in the United Kingdom. In my constituency, which does not have a very big rural area, two more cases were identified today. The problems are increasing.
There will obviously be an inquiry into the outbreak. It may be through the Select Committee system or there may be a public inquiry. When that inquiry is held, it will look into the reasons for the outbreak, what went wrong, what went right and how we will deal with the situation next time. It will come back to the fact that what really started the problem was the two or three-week delay in the notification of the disease at the farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall. Unfortunately, that delay allowed the disease to spread throughout the country, specifically within Cumbria. That has led to the problems that we see today.
Much concern has been expressed today about the farmers and their families. I reiterate that; there is no doubt that they are devastated and, in many cases, are in despair. I have talked to farmers in my constituency and throughout Cumbria and there is a sense of desperation.
My constituency is mainly urban—90 per cent. of the population is urban—but there is no division between the two communities. There is great support among those who live in the city centre for help for those on the farms and in the rural community. Carlisle city council intends to allocate £250,000 tomorrow for aid for those who are suffering, and I applaud that. There is no division between the communities, and no one should try to create one. There has been too much talk in this House over the years of town and country: this crisis has brought us together, and it should keep us together.
Concern has been expressed about how the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has dealt with the situation. Some farmers' grievances are justified, even if others arise from anger that something has gone wrong and a need to blame someone for it. Certainly, no blame can be laid against the staff who have worked in my constituency. The vets and slaughtermen, those who have gone out to farms and those who work at Rosehill, Edenbridge house and the new crisis centre that has been set up at the civic centre have worked tremendously hard. Unfortunately, we must ask them to work that hard for a lot longer since there is no sign of abatement. I pay tribute to them.
The Government made the right decision in deciding that the regional headquarters in my constituency should expand. It was under threat, but if we had closed it,


Cumbria would have more serious problems now. The decision to expand it depended greatly on the calibre of the staff, and they have shown that calibre recently.
There has been criticism about communication problems. Whether the true extent of the problems did not go down the line from Carlisle to Whitehall, or whether Whitehall was not listening, I do tot know. I have, however, been deeply concerned about those problems, and have brought them to the Minister's attention. Over the weekend, too, I made several telephone calls to Downing street. I am glad that a senior civil servant, Jane Brown, has been sent to Cumbria, and I hope that the Minister will tell us more about her brief. I hope that she will have powers to take the immediate decisions needed if we are to get on top of the crisis.
Last Thursday's announcement on a cull within 3 km of an affected farm was greeted with anger and dismay by some farmers in my constituency That anger abated somewhat when we clarified the position with regard to cattle, and there has been further change since then because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State met National Farmers Union representatives in Carlisle on Sunday and went on television later to explain the policy to people beyond that group. In addition, the chief vet, Jim Scudamore, came on Monday to talk to vets and farmers.
Time has also changed matters since last Thursday. Almost a week later, it has become apparent that the Government's policy announcement was correct. The increase in cases has proved the Government right, though I must enter the caveat that we have to listen to local opinion, especially among vets. Where a farmer has good reason to protect his stock, that farmer should have a right to appeal.
I have already thanked my right hon. Friend for coming to Cumbria on Sunday. The NFU in Carlisle much appreciated her visit, and she learned as much as they did from it. She was told one or two things about which she had not been aware, particularly about delays. I also pay tribute to the NFU in Cumbria with whom my relationship has not always been of the best, but we have worked well together during this crisis. I pay tribute to Nick Utting, the local NFU secretary. We have done a lot, but much remains to be done.
Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of State give me some information on targets? There is still concern about delays, although I accept that the situation is improving. I hope that as soon as an outbreak is confirmed—or perhaps as soon as it is suspected—the target should be that action is taken: the diseased animals should be destroyed within 24 hours and within a further 24 hours they should be buried or removed from the site—sent to the rendering plant or whatever. That is important. We cannot say that the outbreak is under control until we can act within such time limits. Hopefully, the number of cases will start to decline in the not too distant future, but the problem will continue for a while.
I wholly support the involvement of the Army; that is obviously a help and we shall see the benefits. However, I am not sure whether we need to bring up hundreds of soldiers with heavy-lifting equipment—probably from the south of England—to carry out burial and disposal. Good civil engineers and building contractors in Cumbria have the expertise to carry out such work, with the advantage that they are there already—we do hot have to wait for them to arrive from Salisbury plain or wherever. I hope

that my right hon. Friend will carefully consider the involvement of more local contractors to help with disposals.
Compensation for slaughtered animals is being paid quickly—that point came out at our meeting with the NFU. There is no problem with that; the animals are valued and slaughtered and the cheques are being sent out. There was no complaint about that, which is good. However, the agriculture sector will need a great deal of support over the next three to six months—perhaps for a year or more. The Government must find ways of providing that support.
We need to examine the structure of the agricultural industry. We should consider what we really need in Cumbria—what we want farms to do—and make the necessary adjustments in the sector.
I welcome the support announced by the Government yesterday for the wider rural economy. However, we need to look further into the matter, so it was especially pleasing to hear that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment had agreed to meet a delegation from Cumbria to discuss what is needed to help the whole county. I hope that meeting will take place towards the end of next week, because immediate action is needed.
Agriculture is not the only problem—tourism faces great problems. The affected areas of Cumbria stretch from Silloth on the Solway plain to my constituency and up to the Scottish border and south of Penrith—probably a quarter of the county. Fortunately, the rest of the county does not seem to be affected yet—touch wood. However, there are effects on the whole of Cumbria because of television programmes and pictures in the newspapers that suggest that the entire county is affected. That is not the truth. Areas such as Barrow, Whitehaven, Kendal and Workington do not have a problem. People can visit those places and enjoy their holidays. We must get that message across.
It is not helpful when the Leader of the Opposition says that the Cumbria tourist board is in favour of cancelling the elections. I have checked that point. The tourist board did not say that; it is the personal view of the chief executive. Obviously, I understand that the Leader of the Opposition misquotes people; he misquoted me today. I still have not found out where he got the quote relating to my criticism of the Government.
It would be wrong to cancel the local elections in Cumbria, especially if we are singled out along with Devon. What does that say to people who are thinking of coming to stay? It suggests that there is something seriously wrong in Cumbria, and people will not go there. Let us consider the impact that that is having on the Cumbrian economy. Agriculture is losing £5 million a week and the tourist trade is losing up to £10 million every week—a £15 million loss in a county with a population of less than 500,000. That is a major hit, and it would be bad enough, but we know that it will get worse unless we can get the tourists back. It has been calculated that we will lose £70 million if things have not improved by Easter. As the holiday season begins, the losses will amount to £20 million or £30 million a week. We must do something drastic about that.
I want to make two points before I conclude my comments. Cumbrian Members of Parliament are here now. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness


(Mr. Hutton) is sitting on the Front Bench and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) is sitting behind me. We must accept that the economy of Cumbria will go into recession this year. We cannot disguise the fact that people will lose their jobs and businesses will close. Some people have said that Cumbria is in meltdown, but that is not true and it does not help.
The Cumbrian economy will bounce back. How soon it bounces back and how high it bounces will depend, first, on those of us who live in the county. We must decide how we shall get out of the situation. It is no good holding up our hands, saying, "Help us." We must take action. Although the Cumbrian taskforce is very useful, Cumbria county council must be the lead organisation.
Secondly, we need assistance from the Government. Agriculture needs Government assistance, as does the whole county, but it does not just need money. However, it will need quite a lot of money, and I hope that the assistance will be generous. We must remember that public money is involved; we cannot throw it away. The Cumbrian taskforce should be given some money so that it has the option of picking out the priorities, and I hope that that will be discussed during the delegation's visit next week.
Finally, the economy will not improve greatly unless we eradicate foot and mouth disease throughout the county. We can do the other things that I have mentioned, but the main priority must be to get on top of this terrible disease and wipe it out in Cumbria as quickly as possible.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on initiating this debate, and I fully understand and appreciate the reasons that have prompted him to do so. I very much welcome his presence here tonight, as well as that of other Members with a deep interest in the issue, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) and the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). They represent different parts of Cumbria, but they are all deeply concerned about the consequences of foot and mouth disease not only for the farming community, but for the wider economy of Cumbria.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is also here. That is particularly appropriate given his work on the rural taskforce that will be responsible for dealing with many of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has raised.
I thank my hon. Friend for his work in facilitating my visit to Cumbria last weekend. That was very much appreciated. The meeting that he organised with farmers' representatives was particularly valuable in providing me with many telling examples of some of the problems that have been experienced in the area.
I was amused—and sorry—that one media report of my visit alleged that I had met everyone but farmers. That is simply not true. I do not know whether the reporter concerned does not understand that National Farmers

Union officials are also farmers or simply overlooked the fact that, later in the day in Keswick, I met different types of farmers, including different types of livestock farmers. However, the visit was informative for what the farmers told me.
I am glad that the visit was followed by the visit of the chief veterinary officer, Jim Scudamore, who met several farming representatives and took a great personal interest in some of the veterinary and management issues that were raised with him and that had been raised with me the day before.
There is no doubt that Cumbria is, by a long way, the area most affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) is present, and it is true that a wider area in the south of Scotland, including Dumfries and Galloway, has also been badly affected. We Know how some cases of the disease were transmitted and affected Cumbria particularly severely. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle referred to the original outbreak at Heddon-on-the-Wall—it still seems to be the original outbreak—and it is alarming that the lesions on the animals there suggested that the disease had been around for some time. Given the fact that it had been transmitted to the neighbouring sheep population and given the movement of sheep around the country, the extent of the problem became clear after a few days.
The trade at livestock markets—in particular, that at Longtown—enabled the disease to be carried around the country. Although it was carried around the country, most of the sheep that wont through Longtown market stayed in the Cumbria and Dumfries and Galloway area. That is clear from the number of outbreaks that have occurred there. We must consider a whole range of issues—including those relating to the movement of animals and how the disease is transmitted—to learn the lessons properly.
It is particularly tragic that the disease has become so embedded in the sheep population. Cumbria contains many sheep, but the way in which sheep are affected makes it difficult scmetimes to recognise that they have the disease. They may carry the disease and infect other livestock, particularly cattle, and that adds to the huge problems that are now being experienced.
My hon. Friend referred to the measures that are being introduced in Cumbria to tackle the disease. I appreciate his comments about the proposals for the wider cull. I understand the distress in Cumbria. My right hon. Friend the Minister apologised fully for the initial misunderstanding at out the scope of the extended cull. Given the tremendous problems in tackling clear examples of disease, the talk of an extended cull alarmed Cumbrian farmers. None the less, I agree with my hon. Friend that there seems to be greater understanding on both sides of the border of the veterinary reasons why the chief vet recommended the wider cull.
Although the animals are often referred to as healthy, "apparently healthy" would be a better description. They are dangerous contacts and may well incubate and carry foot and mouth. We are keen to avoid thinking that we have got on top of the disease only for it suddenly to break out again mote virulently and over a much wider area because of the movement of infected sheep. Farmers increasingly recognise the need to avoid that. Such an outbreak would be appalling news for Cumbria and bad news for our livestock industry. On the advice of the chief vet, we believe that the measures are necessary.
The number of animals for which slaughter has been authorised in Cumbria is about 165,000. The number that has been confirmed slaughtered is 118,000. Some 46,000 are awaiting slaughter and 26,000 are awaiting destruction. I was concerned about the delays that were cited to me. Some of the changes reflect our determination to ensure that the targets for dealing with cases from confirmation to slaughter and from slaughter to disposal are fully complied with. The vital target is to ensure that the time between confirmation of the disease and slaughter is as short as possible. We must act on that most speedily. Obviously, the time from slaughter to disposal should also be as short as possible, but in disease-risk terms, it is less important than the first target.
There are different forms of disposal of animals, including burial. My right hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties in Cumbria because of the shallow soil and complications with the water table. None the less, we are not against burial if it can be safely carried out in accordance with good environmental standards. There is also the landfill option. My hon. Friend did not mention that, but he knows that we are pursuing it. However, I noted the concerns about one of the sites that was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in the earlier debate. Again, everyone has to be content that the landfill site is appropriate and does not present risks. Rendering and incineration are other forms of disposal.
During the longer debate that preceded this one, hon. Members asked about slaughtering on suspicion. That happens in the vast majority of cases. They asked also why a qualified vet should have to telephone head office before slaughter is ordered. Concerns were expressed, not by my hon. Friend but by others, that that could slow down the procedure, but it speeds it up by triggering the next stages of valuation and disposal. Often, it is extremely useful for the vet at head office to discuss with

the vet in the field the details of the case, its likely connection to others and so on. That is an important link in the chain.
The use of the Army in Cumbria has been addressed. There is a command-and-control centre in Carlisle, as there is in Exeter. We are considering further support with the Ministry of Defence. The comments of my hon. Friend and the farmers in Cumbria whom I met showed a clear understanding of what the Army could and could not do, unlike comments that have been made about the use of the Army more generally.
The management changes that we are introducing in Cumbria will be important. The arrival of Jane Brown as director of operations is a helpful development. She is a very senior MAFF official, and she will co-ordinate the Army logistics and the disposal mechanisms, and work with existing staff and new staff who are being brought in. It is also important to highlight the work of Richard Drummond, the assistant chief veterinary officer, who will be responsible for veterinary operations in Cumbria and the north-east. I have known him since the beginning of the outbreak, when he was advising me on an earlier visit that I made to the Heddon-on-the-Wall area, and I know that his role will be useful.
My hon. Friend mentioned the wider issues. Jane Brown will participate in the Cumbria taskforce because we believe that the Ministry has a role in its work. When I was in Cumbria at the weekend, I was interested to hear about the setting up of the taskforce, and I endorse my hon. Friend's comments about Cumbria county council's role in the process—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Deferred Divisions

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (S.I., 2001, No. 85)

That the Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 85), dated 16th January 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th January, be revoked.

The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 263.

Division No. 162]



AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Allan, Richard
Fox, Dr Liam


Amess, David
Fraser, Christopher


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Gale, Roger


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Garnier, Edward



George, Andrew (St Ives)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gibb, Nick


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gidley, Sandra


Baker, Norman
Gill, Christopher


Ballard, Jackie
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Beggs, Roy
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Berth, Rt Hon A J 
Gray, James


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Green, Damian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Greenway, John


Bercow, John
Grieve, Dominic


Blunt, Crispin
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
Hague, Rt Hon William


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hammond, Philip


Brady, Graham
Harris, Dr Evan


Brake, Tom
Harvey, Nick


Brand, Dr Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hayes, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Heald, Oliver


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Burnett, John
Horam, John


Burns, Simon
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Burstow, Paul
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Jenkin, Bernard



Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cash, William



Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Keetch, Paul



Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Chidgey, David



Chope, Christopher
Key, Robert


Clappison, James
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Coleman, lain
Kirkwood, Archy


Collins, Tim
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Connarty, Michael
Lansley, Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Cotter, Brian 
Leigh, Edward


Cran, James
Letwin, Oliver


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Lidington, David



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Curry, Rt Hon David
Livsey, Richard


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Loughton, Tim


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Luff, Peter


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Day, Stephen
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Donaldson, Jeffrey
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Duncan, Alan
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Duncan Smith, lain
McLoughlin, Patrick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
McNamara, Kevin


Evans, Nigel
Madel, Sir David


Fabricant, Michael
Maples, John


Fallon, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Feam, Ronnie
Mates, Michael


Flight, Howard
Maude, Rt Hon Francis





Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


May, Mrs Theresa
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Moore, Michael
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Spicer, Sir Michael


(B'ham Yardley)
Spring, Richard 


Moss, Malcolm
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Norman, Archie
Stunell, Andrew


Oaten, Mark
Swayne, Desmond


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Syms, Robert


Ottaway, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Page, Richard
Taylor. John M (Solihull)


Paice, James
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Paterson, Owen
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Pickles, Eric
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Prior, David
Tredinnick, David


Randall, John
Trend, Michael


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tyler, Paul


Rendel, David
Tyrie, Andrew


Robathan, Andrew
Walter, Robert


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Waterson, Nigel


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Webb, Steve


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Whittingdale, John


Ruffley, David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wilkinson, John


St Aubyn, Nick
Willetts, David


Sanders, Adrian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shepherd, Richard



NOES



Adams, Mrs Irene (PaisleyN)
Clapham, Michael


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Dr Lynda


Allen, Graham
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clelland, David


Austin, John
Clwyd, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Barron, Kevin
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Colman, Tony


Beard, Nigel
Cooper, Yvette


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbett, Robin


Begg, Miss Anne
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cranston, Ross


Bennett, Andrew F
Crausby, David


Benton, Joe
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Berry, Roger
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blackman, Liz
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Borrow, David
(B'ham Hodge H)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dawson, Hilton


Bradshaw, Ben
Denham, Rt Hon John


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dismore, Andrew


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dobbin, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Burden, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H


Burgon, Colin
Doran, Frank


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dowd, Jim


Cabom, Rt Hon Richard
Drew, David


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Drown, Ms Julia


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Edwards, Huw


Caplin. Ivor
Efford, Clive


Casale, Roger
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caton, Martin
Ennis, Jeff


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Chaytor, David
Flint, Caroline


Church, Ms Judith
Flynn, Paul






Follett, Barbara
Mackinlay. Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McNulty, Tony


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
MacShane, Denis


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Foulkes, George
McWalter, Tony


Fyfe, Maria
McWilliam John


Gardiner, Barry
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gerrard, Neil
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Gibson, Dr Ian
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Martlew, Eric


Godsiff, Roger
Meale, Alan


Goggins, Paul
Merron, G[...]llian


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Michie, Bil[...] (Shef'ld Heeley)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Moffatt, Laura


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grogan, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hain, Peter
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)



Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mullin, Chris


Hendrick, Mark
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hepburn, Stephen
Murphy, J[...]m (Eastwood)


Heppell, John
Murphy, [...]t Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hesford, Stephen
Norris, Dan


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
O'Hara, Eddie


Hoey, Kate
O'Neill, Martin


Hope, Phil
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hopkins, Kelvin
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Pearson, [...]an


Howells, Dr Kim
Pickhall, Colin


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Plaskitt, James


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pond, Chris


lddon, Dr Brian
Pope, Greg


Illsley, Eric
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Primarolo Dawn


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jamieson, David
Purchase Ken


Jenkins, Brian
Quin. Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Quinn, Lawrie



Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Raynsforrl, Nick


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)



Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Robinson Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Joyce, Eric
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rogers, Allan


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Ross, Err[...]ie (Dundee W)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roy, Frank


Khabra, Piara S
Ruane, Chris


Kidney, David
Ruddock Joan


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Salter, Martin


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Sarwar, Mohammad


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Savidge, Malcolm


Laxton, Bob
Sawford, Phil


Lepper, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Levitt, Tom
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Skinner, Dennis


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Linton, Martin
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Soley, Clive


Love, Andrew
Southworth, Ms Helen


McAvoy, Thomas
Speller, John


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Squire, Ms Rachel


McDonagh, Siobhain
Steinberg, Gerry


McFall, John
Stevenson, George


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Stewart, [...]an (Eccles)


Mclsaac, Shona
Strang, [...]t Hon Dr Gavin





Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Ward, Ms Claire


Stringer, Graham
Watts, David


Sutcliffe, Gerry
White, Brian


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Timms, Stephen
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Touhig Don
Wills, Michael


Trickett, Jon
Winnick, David


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wood. Mike


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Woodward, Shaun


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Worthington, Tony


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tynan, Bill
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Walley, Ms Joan
Wyatt, Derek

Question accordingly negatived.

EUROPEAN SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY

That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 27th November 2000 relating to the Presidency Report to the Nice European Council on the Common European Security and Defence Policy (document 14056/3/00) and the three unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the FCO on 22nd and 23rd January relating to the establishment of permanent CESDP bodies; welcomes the Government's approach to a Common European Security and Defence Policy; and supports the Govenment's intention to pursue this intitiative in the EU and in close co-operation with NATO.

The House divided: Ayes 303,Noes 133.

Division No. 163]


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Burstow, Paul


Ainger, Nick
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Alexander, Douglas
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Allan, Richard
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)






Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Atkins, Charlotte
Caplin, Ivor


Austin, John
Casale, Roger


Baker, Norman
Caton, Martin


Ballard, Jackie
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Barnes, Harry
Chaytor, David


Barron, Kevin
Chidgey, David


Bayley, Hugh
Church, Ms Judith


Beard, Nigel
Clapham, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Begg, Miss Anne
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Beith, Rt Hon A J



Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clelland, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Clwyd, Ann


Benton, Joe
Coaker, Vernon


Berry, Roger
Coffey, Ms Ann


Betts, Clive
Coleman, lain


Blackman, Liz
Colman, Tony


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Connarty, Michael


Borrow, David
Cooper, Yvette


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Corbett, Robin


Bradshaw, Ben
Cotter, Brian


Brake, Tom
Cranston, Ross


Brand, Dr Peter
Crausby, David


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Browne, Desmond



Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Burden, Richard
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Burgon, Colin
Davey, Edward (Kingston)






Davidson, Ian
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Joyce, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)



Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dawson, Hilton
Keetch, Paul


Denham. Rt Hon John
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dismore, Andrew
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Dobbin, Jim



Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Donohoe, Brian H
Khabra, Piara S


Doran, Frank
Kidney, David


Dowd, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Drew, David
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Drown, Ms Julia
Kingham, Ms Tess


Eagle, Maria (L pool Garston)
Kirkwood, Archy


Edwards, Huw
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Efford, Clive
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Laxton, Bob


Ennis, Jeff
Lepper, David


Feam, Ronnie
Levitt, Tom


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lewis. Ivan (Bury S)


Flint, Caroline
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Flynn, Paul
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Follett, Barbara
Linton, Martin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Livsey, Richard


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lloyd. Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Love, Andrew


Foulkes, George
McAvoy, Thomas


Fyfe, Maria
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gardiner, Barry
McDonagh, Siobhain


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McFall, John


Gerrard, Neil
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mclsaac, Shona


Gidley, Sandra
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
McNamara, Kevin


Godsiff, Roger
McNulty, Tony


Goggins, Paul
MacShane, Denis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Grogan. John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hain, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Martlew, Eric


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Meacher. Rt Hon Michael


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Meale, Alan


Harris, Dr Evan
Merron, Gillian


Harvey, Nick
Michael. Rt Hon Alun


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hendrick, Mark
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hepburn, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Heppell, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hesford, Stephen
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Moore, Michael


Hinchliffe, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoey, Kate
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hope, Phil



Hopkins, Kelvin
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)



Howells, Dr Kim
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Murphy. Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Norris, Dan


Illsley, Eric
Oaten, Mark


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jamieson, David
O'Hara, Eddie


Jenkins, Brian
O'Neill, Martin


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Organ, Mrs Diana



Osbome, Ms Sandra


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pickthall, Corn


Jones, Helen (Wamngton N)
Pike, Peter L





Plaskitt, James
Stevenson, George


Pond, Chris
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pope, Greg
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Primarolo, Dawn
Stringer, Graham


Prosser, Gwyn
Stunell, Andrew


Purchase, Ken
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Quin. Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Quinn, Lawrie
Temple—Morris, Peter


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Rendel, David
Timms, Stephen


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Tonge, Dr Jenny



Touhig, Don


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov[...]try NW)
Trickett, Jon


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Roy, Frank
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruane, Chris
Tyler, Paul


Ruddock, Joan
Tynan, Bill


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Walley, Ms Joan


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Ward, Ms Claire


Salter, Martin
Watts, David


Sanders, Adrian
Webb, Steve


Sarwar, Mohammad
White, Brian


Savidge, Malcolm
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sawford, Phil
Wicks, Malcolm


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams. Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Wills, Michael


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew ([...]xford E)
Winnick, David


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'[...]'ns)
Woodward, Shaun


Soley, Clive
Worthington, Tony


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Spellar, John
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wyatt, Derek


Steinberg, Gerry


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amess, David
Evans, Nigel


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Fabricant, Michael


Arbuthnot. Rt Hon James
Fallon. Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Flight, Howard


Beggs, Roy
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bercow, John
Fox, Dr Liam


Blunt, Crispin
Fraser, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Vi[...]ginia
Gibb, Nick


Brady. Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce. Ian (S Dorset)
Gray, James


Burnett, John
Green, Damian


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John


Butterfill, John
Grieve, Dominic


Cash, William
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hague, Rt Hon William



Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Chope, Christopher
Hammond, Philip


Clappison, James
Hawkins, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hayes, John


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Heald, Oliver


Collins, Tim
Heathcoat—Amory. Rt Hon David


Cran, James
Horam, John


Curry, Rt Hon David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Johnson Smith,


Duncan, Alan
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Duncan Smith, lain
Key, Robert






King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Mates, Michael


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Lansley, Andrew
May, Mrs Theresa


Leigh, Edward
Moss, Ma[...]colm


Letwin, Oliver
Nicholls, Patrick


Lidington, David
Norman, Archie


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ottaway, Richard


Loughton. Tim
Page, Richard


Luff, Peter
Paice, James


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Paterson, Owen


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Pickles, Eric


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Prior, David


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Randall, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Madel, Sir David
Robathan, Andrew


Maples, John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)





Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Ruffley David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


St Aubyn, Nick
Tredinnick, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Trend. Michael


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Tyrie, Andrew


Shepherd, Richard
Walter, Robert


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Waterson, Nigel


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Whittingdale, John


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wilkinson, John


Spring. Richard
Willetts, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Swayne, Desmond
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Syms, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.